. * *. ' ./^ 






m 



s4* 













'2^ , U'v 







r^t; 



^kmngs kit\ i\t "^mmisU. 



N 

EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS: 



WITH AN INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 



MORAL RESULTS OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



REV. M. HOB ART SEYMOUR, M.A. 



WITH INTRODUCTORY NOTICE, 

BY STEPHEN H. TYNa, D.D. 



NEW YORK: 

ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 

No. 285 BROADWAY. 

1856. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Introductory Notice by Dr. Tyng ix 

The Moral Results of the Romish System 13 

The Reading of the Holy Scriptures 53 

The Unity of the Church. ■. 81 

The Holiness of the Church 102 

The Catholicity of the Church 116 

Apostolicity of the Church 128 

Confession and Absolution 138 

The Use of an Unknown Language in Public Worship... 168 

Prayer to the Saints 18t 

Inyocation of Saints 20 Y 

The Worship of the Saints 22t 

The Virgin Mary 245 

The Christian Priesthood 2*73 

The Sacrifice of the Mass 286 

The Sixth Chapter of St. John 305 

Transubstantiation , 321 

Transubstantiation. — II 33t 

Transubstantiation. — III 354 

Half-Communion 366 

Purgatory. — 1 383 

Purgatory. — II 396 

The Supremacy of the Church of Rome 409 

Infallibility of the Church 433 

The Antiquity of the Church 462 



INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. 

The following work will be found equally striking 
and important. It relates to a subject which, never 
more justly commanded public attention, and the in- 
fluences and possible results of which, were never 
more worthy of serious consideration. The whole 
Papal scheme, doctrinal and political, is engaged in a 
vital contest with the powers of Truth and Elghteous- 
ness. In every ancient seat of its dominion , its in- 
fluence is waning and passing away. In some new 
fields of its aggressive operation it seems to be exer- 
cising a renewed power of advance. The actual 
dominion of the Papacy, over the nations of Europe, 
has gone. It no longer dwells in the affections or the 
reverence of any people. It is no longer able to 
exercise a welcome control over any government, how- 
ever limited. It is no longer the unrivaled power in 
any territory. Its bulls and edicts are rather ridiculed 
than reverenced. Its interdicts and excommunications 
are thundered forth with no attending fears among 
the people who used to tremble at their power. The 



X INTRODUCTOEY NOTICE. 

Pope has not the shadow of temporal power, and 
hardly the token of influence over temporal power, 
any where in Europe. France and Austria pretend a 
respect which neither feels. Piedmont and Spain have 
burst their bonds asunder in derision. Italy looks on 
with a hatred but half-concealed. And even Eome 
furnishes a home within its walls for a despised 
tyrant only because foreign soldiers are hired to keep 
guard upon their borders. Miserable is the condition 
of the Man of Sin, who has now inherited the re- 
sponsibilities and the guilt of the past ages of popish 
hostility to the Gospel, and cruelty to the Saints of 
God. The hour has arrived when, so far as Conti- 
nental Europe is concerned, he seems the abhorred of 
men. And the reflecting and instructed mind can 
not look upon the whole present conflict, among the 
European powers, without the strong anticipation, if 
not full conviction, that the Eomish Anti-Christ must 
have its hour of judgment and punishment, before this 
extending warfare shall have closed. In the mean 
time, the moral contest between the darkness of 
Popery and the light of the Gospel is advancing in 
other lands. It would seem as if the aggressions of 
Popery had been allowed in more enlightened nations, 
for the purpose of giving a field to that aspect of the 
contest which the popular ignorance of older popish 



IJSTTEODUCTORY KOTICE. XI 

lands could not present. Where Eome has reigned, 
independent intelligence, and the knowledge of Scrip- 
ture truth, have been wholly destroyed. She has 
been carefal to have no prepared intellectual an- 
tagonist. England and America have opened new 
fields for a new contest. In those older seats her 
cruelty will be repaid with fire and blood. In these 
new ones, her tyranny over the souls of men will be 
met by the power of truth, and the resistance of ac- 
cumulated Soripture light. But both in the material 
contest with exasperated force, and in the intellectual 
and moral contest with well arranged and fortified 
truth and holiness, Eome is doomed to perish. Yet 
the contest must be earnestly waged before she finally 
falls. In England and Ireland, where this fight is 
going bravely on, the Author of the present book, 
who is a valued evangelical clergyman of the Church 
of England, and completely armed and practiced in 
this popish war, has been a valuable and important 
agent. The present work will be found deeply in- 
teresting and eminently practical. It brings forward 
the argument between Scripture truth and Eome in 
a clear and well adapted form. The simplicity of 
style, and the fertility of illustration which distin- 
guish it, will carry it home to every conscience and 
heart. It will be a valuable weapon for the warfare 



Xii IKTRODUCTORY KOTICE. 

on our unconquered, and, we believe, iincouquerable 
soil. It will furnish information and strength to 
many minds, and lead many, in their private conflicts, 
in victory out from Babylon. This edition is 4he 
only complete American edition — omitting nothing but 
the unimportant dedication to Lord Palmerston, 
which has no connection with the great subject dis- 
cussed. The whole consideration of the moral and 
doctrinal corruptions of the Eomish power, contained 
in the English copy, is here given, without alteration 
or omission. We trust it will find among American 
readers the attention which its argument and power 

so well deserve. 

S. a T. 



MORAL RESULTS OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



That the amount of crime in this country is too high, and 
the spread of immorality too extensive, is the lament of every 
good man. 

It has been suggested that new means should *be tried to 
keep down the surging of crime, and restrain the deluge of 
immorality, and — in the subtle spirit of a certain party 
among us — it is argued, that convents, and nunneries, and 
confessionals, so long banished from among us, should again 
be introduced, at least in some modified form, on the principle 
that as the restraints and motives, which our Protestant Chris- 
tianity imposes upon crime and immorality, have confessedly 
failed, there ought now to be trial made of the restraints and 
motives which are supplied by the institutions of the Church 
of Rome. 

The most natural mode of dealing with this suggestion is 
an inquiry, as to whether the motives and restraints supplied 
by the Church of Rome have succeeded so well, or whether they 
have succeeded at all, in those countries where they have been 
tried — whether convents, nunneries, and confessionals, have 
succeeded in suppressing crime, and lessening immorality in 
those countries where Romanism is the estabhshed relisrion, 
as well as the popular belief — where all the laws and institu- 
tions of the land assist in giving them efficiency, and where 
therefore they are tried under circumstances the most favor- 
able for their efficient development; in short, whether they 



14 MORAL RESULTS 

have succeeded in sucli countries, as well as the principles of 
our Protestant Christianity have succeeded in England. 

It is evident that a problem of this kind should be worked, 
not on the guesses or opinions of travelers, w^ho seldom see 
beneath the surface; nor on the statements of pubHc journals, 
which are generally the organs of a party, but on evidence of 
the clearest kind — evidence removed from party, and free from 
prejudice. This evidence is in existence ; almost eveiy gov- 
ernment in Europe receives regular returns of the amount of 
crime and immorality in their respective States every year. 
These returns form a mass of statistical tables, compiled with- 
out political partisanship or religious prejudice. The taint of 
suspicion can not approach them. 

To this evidence I invite the attention of calm and think- 
ing men. 

In England, we enjoy the noble and ennobling privilege of 
a Free Press. It is the strong right arm that protects our 
civil liberties, and the broad shield that covers our religious 
freedom. Its advantages are so vast that we may well bear 
with its few disadvantages. Among these latter is the pub- 
licity which it gives to the amount of crime in this country. 
It delights in unmasking and exposing the criminal. It allows 
no delinquency to be concealed. It drags every thing to the 
light of day, and publishes it to the world : and in so doing it 
seems to multiply our crimes. When any crime of atrocity 
and blood is perpetrated, the press immediately details the 
particulars and denounces the criminal ; this is its first appear- 
ance. Soon afterward the Coroner holds his inquest, and the 
evidence is detailed, and a verdict pronounced, and all again is 
published. This is the second appearance. Some weeks 
afterward the accused is arrested and evidence is again taken 
before the magistrates, and he is committed ; and now all ap- 
pears again in the journals of the day. This is the third 
appearance. And as months perhaps roll by, and the assizes 
arrive, and the accused stands his trial, under all the solem- 
nities of our tribunals, and the whole details are re-opened, all 
is again published to the world. This is the fourth appear- 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 16 

ance. And thus the press seems to multiply our crimes ; one 
murder seems to become four, and to the eye of a stranger 
the country is at least three times more guilty than it is. On 
the continent, however, there is nothing like this, and not one 
crime in ten is ever noticed in the journals. 

This renders it all the more necessary that we should work 
out the problem now before us, neither on the opinion of trav- 
elers nor on the publicity of our journals, but on the official 
and governmental returns of the several countries. 

It would be a needless waste of time, and an unnecessary 
complication of figures to touch on every class of crime. I 
select one, the highest of all crimes — murder. 

I shall commence with the criminal calendar of Protestant 
England, and then proceed in order to the several Roman 
Catholic countries of Europe. 

By the tables laid before Parliament, and published by 
order of the House in 1852, we are in possession not only of 
the state of the criminal calendar in 1851, but of its state for 
the ten years preceding. From these tables it appears that 
the total number of persons committed in 1851 for the crime 
of murder was 74. And of these committals the results were 
as follows : 

Discharged, no evidence . . • . 8 

Acquitted on trial 44 

Convicted . . . . . . .16 

Insane persons . 6 

'74 
Such is the record of crime for 1851, and in this is com- 
prehended every species of murder. Not only deliberate mur- 
der, but poisoning and infanticide and parricide. All these 
forms which are classed under different heads in other coun 
tries, are included in these figures. And this number is above 
the average of the last ten years. The total of committals 
during that period was Yl8, and of these the number of con- 
victions was 179, giving for the average each year : 

Committals for murder, less than . . .72 
Convictions . . . . . . .18 



16 MORAL RESULTS 

Such is the record of the crime of murder in all its varieties 
in Eno-land and Wales. The number of actual convictions — 
of murders proved, is surprisingly small, and although they 
are perhaps the truest test of the actual amount of crimes, yet, 
as is usual on criminal statistics, I shall assume the committals 
hei'e as elsewhere, as the amount to be considered. 

Taking, then, the average of committals as the amount of 
crime, namely V2, and taking the population of England and 
Wales, according to the census of 1851, at 17,927,609, the 
proportion of murder is, four to every million of the popu- 
lation. 

The transition from Protestant England, to Roman Catholic 
Ireland, is intensely painful, -as exhibiting the character of a 
population, under the same sovereign, the same laws, the same 
institutions, and governed by the same persons. It is possible, 
as some suggest, that Celtic blood or race may be a cause of 
the diflference so observable. It is possible, likew^ise, that 
a mistaken sense of past oppression may have left some 
baleful traces in the national character. At all events, the 
results are enough to make good men weep, as they read the 
record of blood, and more than enough to prove that the 
moral restraints, which are imposed upon crime by the prin-. 
ciples of Romanism, are far less efficient than those imposed 
by the principles of Protestantism. 

A return has been laid on the table of the House of Com- 
mons, containing the number of committals for murder in 
Ireland from July, 1836, to April, 1839. The total was 645 ; 
being a yearly average of 235, or no less than thirty-three 
murders to each milhon of the population ! 

Since that period, however, there has happily been a vast 
improvement. Large masses of the population have emi- 
grated ; great numbers have become Protestant ; and a return 
has been laid before Parhament in 1851, containing the amount 
of committals for murder during a period of seven years. The 
total is 914, being a yearly average of 130. This figure, com- 
pared with the last census, gives about nineteen murders to 
each million of the population. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. l7 

The country that comes next in order, is Roman Catholic 
Belgium. Being placed in the same parallel of latitude, it is 
subjected to the same climatic influences as England. Its civil 
institutions are characterized by as large an amount of liberty, 
and the grand distinction between them is that of Religion. 
There is no nation in Europe more fitted to exhibit the power 
of those restraints Romanism imposes upon crime ; for none 
is so characterized, by all that is best and purest in the 
piety of the Church of Rome. The population of Belgium is 
essentially pious and religious according to the principles of 
that church. 

In the last returns laid before the king by the Minister of 
Justice, and published in 1852,"^ we find the number of ac- 
cused, that is, the number of committals for murder, in each 
year for a period of ten years : 

Cases prosecuted, . . . 53*7 

Cases unknown, . . . . 30 1 

844 

This number contains all cases of assassination, poisoning, 
infanticide, parricide, and generally all the forms, which in 
England are simply classed as murder. They amount to the 
yearly average of 84. And this figure compared with 
4,337,673, the amount of the population at the last census 
in 1846, gives eighteen murders in each million of the 
population. 

In contrasting with this the condition of Roman Catholic 
France as to the same crime of murder, we find our task 
greatly facilitated by the able work of Monsieur Guerry, him- 
self a member of the Church of Rome. This work, ^'Statis- 
tique morale de la France!!'' has been approved and adopted 
by the Royal Academy of Science in Paris. 

* *• Administration de la Justice civile et criminelle de la Belgique, 
par M. D. Lentz, Chef de division au Ministere de la Justice, Bruxelles, 
1852." 



18 



MORAL RESULTS 



This work on the statisiics of crime in France gives the 
following as the average of yearly crime from the returns of 
six years : 

Murder, before the Civil Tribunals, . . 298 
Assassination, ..... 255 

Infanticide, 118 

Poisoning, 40 

Parricide, 13 

Murder, etc., before Military Tribunals, . 217* 

941 
There was thus a total of 941 as the yearly average of 
murders in their several varieties. From this hst are ex- 
cluded all cases of manslaughter, where there was no appear- 
ance of malicious intention to murder ; these amounted on 
the yearly average to 368 more, so that the foregoing gives 
the averages only of those crimes, that are properly described 
as Murder. 

This work, however, was published in 1833. And it is 
important to know the state of France at present as con- 
cerns this class of crime. This is contained in the " Compte 
general de V Administration de la Justice criminelle en France^ 
1851," and presented, by command, to the Emperor by the 
Minister of Justice, and printed by him in 1853. The record 
of committals for that year is as follows : 

Murder, before the Civil Tribunals, 
Assassinations, .... 

Infanticide, 

Poisoning, 

Parricide, 

872f 

* The only difficulty in this statement of Monsieur Guerry, is that in 
this last item, being the average of ten years, tried before the Military 
Tribunals — the cases of manslaughter were included. In the preceding 
items, all such cases are excluded. It does not, however, much affect 
the yearly average. 

f The number of accused is a little more than the number of crimes 
given in the beginning of the report, as several persons were imphcated 
in some of the murders. 



. 242 


P- 


48 


. 369 


P- 


49 


. 182 


P- 


50 


. 47 


P- 


51 


. 32 


P. 


40 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 19 

This gives a total of 872 persons charged with murder for 
the year, exclusive of those tried before the militaiy tribunals. 
The omission of these from the returns is not unnatm'al, when 
it is remembered that it is a military government, and that 
such a return of military crimes would not be either discreet 
or palatable at present. The number may very fairly be reck- 
oned as the same as already given from Guerry, as the aver- 
age of ten years, namely, 217, which, added to the 872 before 
the civil tribunals, makes a total of 1089, as the amount of 
this class of crime in one year in France. This figure, com- 
pared with the amount of the population according to the last 
census in 1846, namely, 35,400,486, gives thirty-one mur- 
ders to each million of the population. 

We next turn to the empire of Austria, essentially Roman 
Catholic — an empire that may well be accepted as the most 
suitable illustration of the civilizing powers of the Church of 
Eome, as being an empire where that church is the established 
church, the almost universal church, an empire where Prot- 
estant principles are barely known, and scarcely tolerated — 
where all the restraints which Romanism imposes upon crime, 
all her convents and monasteries, all her monks and nuns, all 
her confessionals and penances are established, sanctioned, and 
enforced by the laws of the land. 

The criminal statistics of this empire are carefully com- 
piled. There is established on imperial authority, an " Im- 
perial Commission for Statistics," and their duty is to collect 
these every year. The Secretary of this commission has pub- 
lished last year the results in two volumes, entitled, "Die 
Stastistik des Oesterreichischen Kaiserstaates." 

These volumes contain the official or governmental returns 
as to the number of murders perpetrated during the last twenty 
years, and they also give the average numbers of each quin- 
quennial period, so that there is every facility for ascertaining 
the yearly averages. They are as follows : 



20 MORAL RESULTS 

Murders tried before the Civil Tribunals . .7*70 

Infanticide 124 

Murders tried before the Military Tribunals . 431* 

1325 

Such is the yearly average ! There are thus more murders 
committed — more human lives sacrificed every year in the 
Austrian Empire, in cold, wanton, willful murder, than fall in 
some of the fiercest and sternest conflicts of modern warfare. 
It may be the result of absolute and mihtary government, or 
it may be the fruit of e\al laws and defective institutions ; but 
at all events, notwithstanding all the restraints which Roman- 
ism supplies against crime, this Roman Catholic empire ex- 
hibits an amount of this highest class of crime, which, com- 
pared with the population at the last census, namely, 36,514,- 
466, is nearly thirty-six murders to each million of the 
population ! 

Attention must now be directed to Roman Catholic Ba- 
varia ; next to the Empire of Austria, it holds the highest 
place among the Roman Catholic powers of Germany ; and, 
being a country essentially governed on the principles of the 
Church of Rome, and sanctioning by law, and encouraging by 
patronage all the institutions characteristic of that church, it 
may justly be regarded as a fitting stage on which to test the 
efficacy of the principles of Romanism in the repression of 
crime. • 

The official and governmental returns are regularly pub- 
lished, giving the amount of crime of every kind as perpe- 
trated in the kingdom .f The returns of five years are now 
before me, and are as follows : 

* The only difficulty is as to this item. The return is not an average, 
but only a return for one year, namely, 184Y. The Secretary states, 
that owing to the Revolution in 1848, it was impossible to ascertain the 
precise number since then. This number may, therefore, be taken as 
the ordinary amount. 

t "Beitrage zur Statistik des Konigreichs Bayem, Yon Hermann, 
Munchen, 1853." 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 

Simple Murder 

Assassination .... 

Murder by Poisoning 

Murder of children before birth 
" " during birth 

" " afterbirth . 



21 



. 249 
. 834 
. 51 
. 181 
. 20 
. 219 

1554 



These are the total for five years, omitting all. cases of at- 
tempts at murder, and all cases of unintentional homicide. 
They give 311 as the yearly average of this class of crime, 
and this figure, when compared with the amount of the popu- 
lation, which by the last census in 1849, was 4,520,751, or 
four millions and a half, gives as a result about sixty-eight 
murders to each million of the population ! 

And next we turn to Italy. There are no ofiacial or govern- 
mental returns from Spain and Portugal. A French authority 
states that in Spain the murders and attempts at murder, 
amount on the yearly average to about 250 to each million 
of the population ! But I can not find that his statement has 
the authority of governmental returns, and our present argu- 
ment confines itself exclusively to them. 

We turn therefore to Italy, and shall proceed in order 
through its several provinces. It is the land of popes, and 
cardinals, and prelates, and priests, and monks, and nuns — 
the land of convents and monasteries — the land, where all the 
governments are despotic and absolute, and give all their in- 
fluence and power to the Church of Rome ; the land therefore 
of all others, the fittest to exhibit the true character of that 
church in the influence or potency of her principles in the re- 
pression of crime, as being the land essentially the most 
adapted for their favorable development. 

The first of the Italian kingdom is Sardinia, once so re- 
markable for its persecution of the Protestants of its valleys, 
and now for its progress in free institutions. The returns of 
crime are given from the police in Alfieri, and cited from him 
in Mittermaier ; they embrace a period of seven years, all pre- 
ceding the troubles of the late Revolution, and therefore unaf- 



22 MORAL RESULTS 

fected by them. The total number of murders amounts to 
'712, which, divided by seven, gives us a yearly average of 101 
cases of murder. The number of persons stabbed, poniarded, 
pistoled, and otherwise wounded v/as 713 on the yearly aver- 
age. But the number of actual murders being 101, when 
compared with the population, which in 1848 was 4,916,084, 
gives about twenty to each million of the population. 

The next province of Italy is the two Lombardies, where 
the amount of this class of crime ascends still higher. The 
number of murders discovered, together with those the perpe- 
trators of which had altogether escaped, and with the addition 
of the cases of infanticide, amounted in two years to 450. 
The details of these will be found in Mittermaier ; and the 
result is a yearly average of 225, a figure which, when com- 
pared with the population according to the last census, namely 
5,047,472, gives about forty-five murders to each million of 
the population ! 

The Grand Ducal states of Tuscany come next in order, 
and the conspicuous position which their rulers have lately as- 
sumed for this province, in prohibiting under civil penalties 
of fine and imprisonment, the perusal of the Holy Scriptures, 
and re-enacting the middle-age laws, imposing the penalty of 
banishment or death on a change of religious opinion, gives a 
new and pecuhar interest to the state of crime within its bor- 
ders. The returns of all crimes in Tuscany for nine consecu- 
tive years, namely, from 1830 to 1838 will be found in Mitter- 
maier. The following are the murders : 



Murder with robbery 


. 26 


Premeditated Murder 


. 66 


Yoluntary Murder . 


. 305 


Assassination . 


. 233 


Parricide 


. 24 


Murder of wives by husbands, ai 


\diviceversd 2*1 


Murder by poison . 


. 22 


Infanticide . . . . 


. 54 



'757 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 23 

This number distributed tlirougli nine years, gives no less 
than 84 as the yearly average. The amount of the popula- 
tion of Tuscany in 1841 was 1,489,000, so that the amount 
of this class of crime, is about fifty-six to each million of the 
population ! 

And next we arrive at the Papal States — Rome. It is 
far from easy to obtain accurate and precise information upon 
any subject in these States of the Church. Happily, however, 
as concerns our present inquiry, the British government de- 
puted Dr. Bowring to proceed to Rome, and to procure for 
them statistical information respecting central Italy, for com- 
mercial purposes. The report was laid by Lord Palmerston 
on the table of the House of Commons, and has been printed 
by order of Parliament. In that report is a return of the num- 
ber of persons imprisoned for murder in the Papal states, at 
the period of Dr. Bowling's visit, The amount was 580. 
These were persons, some incarcerated after trial, undergoing 
their sentences, and some awaiting their trial. And of these 
it may be probably said, that one third were perpetrated dur- 
ing the year; this would give for the Roman States 193 as 
the murders of one year, and to these are to be added the 
murders in the provinces of Macerata and Ferrara, as detailed 
in the returns, namely 146. This gives us the proximate 
number 339. This is the figure with which we are to deal, 
and comparing this figure with the population of the Papal 
states, which, in 1846, was 2,908,115, the result gives 
above one hundred and thirteen to each million of the 
population ! 

The island of Sicily comes next in review, and presents a 
state of crime not much better than the preceding. In the re- 
turns for murder of various kinds, for the year 1833, they 
amount to 176, and from the returns of several years it is 
stated by Mittermaier that they ranged from 160 as the 
lowest, to 188 as the highest, that is, that 174 may be 
taken as the yearly average. The population in the year 
1834 was 1,936,033, or less than two milhons, so that the 



24 



MORAL RESULTS 



yearly average of murders is about ninety to each million of 
tlie population ! 

But the last and darkest picture of crime is Naples. A 
vail might well be drawn over so terrible and revolting a re- 
cord, but the revelations of Mr. Gladstone respecting that 
country have prepared the mind of England for the truths 
The following is the criminal calendar for one year, as given 
in Mittermaier, and that too in 1832, long before the scenes 
of the last Eevolution : 



Parricide .... 






5 


Murder of wives by husbands, and 


viceversd St 


Infanticide* .... 


. 15 


Murder of relations . 






21 


Poisoning .... 






5 


Premeditated Murder 






134 


Intentional homicide 






663 


Assassination .... 






89 


Murder combined with robbery 






. 15 


" " " adultery 






: 1 



1045 



Such seems the ordinary list of crime in Naples. The 
amount of population exclusive of Sicily is about 6,066,900 ; 
at that period it was little more than five millions. But, 
taking it at the highest figure, it will give about one hundred 
AND SEVENTY-FOUR murdcTs to eacli million of the population ! 

The yearly average of murders in all Italy — in that 
land where the Chm'ch of Kome is supreme, and without 
a rival, is 1,968, so that eveiy year there are left murdered 
in cold blood more men and women and children than 
often fall in our most blood-stained battle-fields. And 
this in the land of convents and nunneries and confes- 
sionals — in the land w^here, of all else on the wide sur- 
face of God's creation, we might expect the full and happy 



* The actual number of cases of infanticide was 84. The preceding 
figure gives the convictions, but 84 children were murdered I 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



25 



development of all the restraints wliicli the Church of Rome 
imposes upon crime' — in the land where priests and monks and 
nuns exceed an hundred and twenty thousand ! Mr. White- 
side informs us that at Assissi there are twelve convents ; at 
Foligno, twelve for monks, and eight for nuns ; at Spoletto, 
twenty-two ; at Terni, five ; at Narni, seven for monks, and five 
for nuns. It appears too that at Perugia, there are thirty-four, 
while in Eome there are sixty-four for monks, and fifty for 
nuns ! And yet it is in this very district that the murders 
amount to one hundred and thirteen to the million of the 
population ! while, in l^aples and Sicily there are, or rather 
were, a few years ago, 16,455 monks, and 13,000 nuns, 
the largest number in any country in the world, and 
tliere there is also the largest proportion of crime to be 
found in any one country on the whole surface of God's 
creation ! 

The following are the results in all the several Roman Ca- 
tholic countries, as contrasted with Protestant England : 



Roman Catholic Ireland . 


. . 19 to the million. 


IL U 


Belgium . 


. . 18 


it 




U U 


France . 


. . 31 


ti 




U (( 


Austria , 


. 36 


11 




u u 


Bavaria . 


. 68 


u 




u u 


Sardinia . 


. . 20 


u 




it u 


Lombardy 


. 45 


tl 




U ({ 


Tuscany 


. 56 


11 


It 


The Papal States . . . . 


. 113 


n 


tt 


Roman CathoHc Sicily . . , 


. 90 


tl 


tt 


<{ a 


Naples . 


. 114 


tt 


tt 


Protestant England . . 


. 4 


it 


It 



I ask — are not these figures eloquent ? 

One thing at least is certain, as derived from tli^se figures, 
oflScial and governmental as they are, namely, that convents 
and nunneries, and confessionals, and all such institutions of 
Romanism have failed, in those countries, where they have 
been tried under the circumstances most favorable for their 
development — ^have failed wretchedly and signally. And the 

2 



26 MORAL RESULTS 

argument, that we ought to introduce into this country the in- 
stitutions of Komanism even in a modified form, as more ef- 
ficient in repressing crime than the principles and motives of 
Protestant Christianity, is not only answered, but annihilated. 

It may, however, be argued that these disastrous and horri- 
fying results in Eoman Catholic countries are not to be attrib- 
uted to the religion of Rome, but to bad laws, evil institutions, 
and unwise legislation. This is just and true in a measure. 
The free and noble institutions of Protestant England — her 
wise and equitable laws — ^her civil freedom and her religious 
liberty — pervaded as they are by the moral principles of her 
Protestant Christianity, all tend to the suppression of crime, 
while in Roman Catholic lands, the despotism of absolute 
power — the military government that with gauntleted hand 
dashes the printing-press in pieces, or holds it in chains — the 
sacerdotal system, which forges the Procrustean bed of a state 
religion, on which every man must lie, whatever be his stature 
and have his head and feet chopped to fit it — all these com- 
bine to engender crime ; and while the people are left with- 
out justice against oppression— without redress in their wrongs, 
it is not wonderful that they take redress into their own hands, 
and in a spirit of wild justice vindicate their own wrongs, and 
avenge themselves. But still it may v/ell be asked, and it is a 
cogent and awkward question, how it comes to pass that pure 
and eternal justice has thus taken wing and fled from every 
Roman Catholic country in Europe, as from some ungenial 
clime, and has made her home in Protestant England as in 
her native place. 

And, although laws and governments may explain in some 
degree the causes of so marked a difference in criminality, 
yet it is impossible to conceal or stifle the conviction that 
there may be some element of difference between Protestant- 
ism and Romanism, which contains the secret. The practice 
of priestly absolution, as rife among the members of the 
Church of Rome — the practice of commuting penance or re- 
pentance for money, so general among them — the belief of 
an amount of merit in attending masses in privileged places, 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 27 

as a set-oiF against the demerit of sins — and above all, tlie 
belief that masses can relieve the souls suffering for their sins 
in Purgatory, combined with the practice of buying and sell- 
ing those masses, all tend to diminish the religious fear and 
awe associated with crime against God. The prevalence of 
such belief and such practices in any land tends necessarily 
to the multiplication of crime ; and while this accounts for 
the higher criminality of the Eoman Catholic countries of 
Europe, their total exclusion from Protestant England, is one 
great element toward the diminution of such crimes within her 
borders. 

But eternal and sacred truth demands a further statement. 
There is an element of difference between the two religions 
of immense importance. It is this — 

Both Romanism and Protestantism are agreed as to the 
deep, black, awful sinfulness of the murderer. They are in 
accord as far as the murderer himself is concerned, as to his 
conscience, as to his soul, as to his eternal destinies if he die 
unrepentant. They may differ indeed as to the mode of get- 
ting rid of his guilt, but they are in accord so far as the mur- 
derer himself is concerned, while they are as wide as the poles 
respecting the murdered victim. 

This difference is wide and important in its results. That 
which gives a double-dyed guilt and shivering horror to the 
crime of murder in the eyes of a Protestant is, that it is sud- 
denly sending an immortal being unbidden before his final 
Judge ; — unprepared, and perhaps unthinking, before the last 
judgment, then and there, " with all his imperfections on his 
head," to receive his eternal destinies. There is no change in 
the grave ; as he lived and died, so he rises and is judged. 
It is this that gives such unspeakable awe to this crime, and 
makes a good man shudder at its very name. But in the 
Church of Rome all this feeling, so cogent in restraining this 
crime, is annihilated. In her it is held, that the moral con- 
dition of a man may undergo a change in the grave — that he 
may be purified and bettered in his after state by purgatorian 
sufferings ; and that after a time he may even stand spotless 



28 MORAL RESULTS 

and blameless before his Judge. In connection with this doc- 
trine it is held that the friends of the dead can relieve his 
sufferings, and secure his release, by getting masses said for 
his soul. And these masses are to be bought and sold as any 
other merchandise in the market. The result is, that the 
murderer looks on his bleeding victim, as he lies stark and 
ghastly, and he comforts himself with the thought that the 
surviving friends of the victim have it in their power to save 
him, by having masses offered for his soul ; and that if they 
indeed fail — if they withhold the money from the priest, he 
himself has but to pay a trifling sum for the required number 
of masses ; and he thus relieves himself — ^he disburdens his 
conscience of all that which gives the highest awe — the 
darkest and dreariest color to this crime in the eyes of a 
Protestant Christian. 

I have myself personally witnessed this traflSc. There are 
certain altars, called " privileged altars," in the churches of 
Rome ; the special privilege of which is, that a single mass 
said at such altar is adequate to release from purgatorian suf- 
fering the soul for which it is offered. I witnessed personally 
the sale of this privileged mass to a large number of persons 
in the Church or Basilica of Santa Croce di Gerusalemme in 
Rome. Each person stated the name of the friend supposed 
to be sufiering in purgatory — paid four pauls, about one shil- 
ling and eight-pence, and received an acknowledgment in 
writing ! I witnessed again the same process at the feast of 
the Assumption at Varallo in 1851. I had visited the Sacro 
Monte there to witness the pilgrimages to the shrine of the 
Virgin. The high altar of the principal church possesses the 
privilege already alluded to. And near it was a bureau or 
office ; with a notice publicly setting forth to the multitude of 
pilgrims, that it was there they received the payments for the 
privileged masses, for the relief of the souls in Purgatory. 
The pilgrims were entering, paying their money, giving the 
names of their departed friends, receiving an acknowledg- 
ment, and then withdrawing. I entered myself ; I stated my 
wish to release the soul of a departed friend. The oflScial 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 29 

bowed courteously, and opened a large account-book, asked 
me my name. 

I gave Lim my name. 

He entered it in this account-book, but spelled it, as most 
Italians do with an English name, so that I could not myself 
recognize it. We both smiled, and lie apologized on account 
of the difficulty of writing a foreign name. 

I asked him how much I was to pay for the release of my 
friend. 

He replied — two francs Milanese and seven cents. 

I gave him a five-franc piece and received the change, by 
which it appeared he retained about one shilling and eight- 
pence. 

He then asked the name of my friend in Purgatory, whose 
soul was to be released. 

I felt that this was the moment for demonstrating the 
absurdity and knavery of this system. I thought that the 
best way of doing this was to give the name of some one 
who was certainly not then in Purgatory. I gave my own 
name ! 

He immediately handed me a book — the book of the names 
of all souls to be released by the privileged mass, and which 
book is deposited on the altar, so that when the priest says 
the privileged mass, he may name audibly or mentally the 
names of those to be released. In this book there were en- 
tered on the same page above twenty names already. On 
handing this book to me he smiled courteously, and apolo- 
gized for giving me the trouble of writing the name, requested 
that I would myself write it, lest he should make any mistake. 
I wrote my own name at full length ! 

He again bowed most courteously, apparently intimating 
that all was completed for the present. But, remembering 
that I saw others get receipts, I asked for one. 

On filling the blanks in the receipt-form, he asked whether 
I would not like a Blessing for my friend's soul, as well as the 
Mass, 

I replied, with many thanks, that as the privileged mass 



30 MORAL RESULTS 

was sure to release bis soul from Purgatory, he would not 
want tlie Blessing. 

He smiled, completed the receipt — signed it — and I with- 
drew. 

Such was the scene in which I personally took part. The 
following is a copy of the receipt : 

" 1851. Sept. 8th. The Sacred Mount. 
*' I, the undersigned, agent of the venerable fabric of the Sacred 
Mount of Yarallo, have received from Mr. Hobart Seymour, the 
charity of one shilling and eight-pence for one Mass to be celebrated 
at the perpetually privileged daily altar of the most blessed Virgin 
Mary in Yarallo. 

" [In witness.] Agno Bertoli." * 

When a system hke this is openly and publicly taught, and 
believed, and practiced, by the priesthood on one hand and 
by the people on the other ; — a system by which either mur- 
derer or victim may be released from the sufferings of another 
world by a small sum in this — where a system like this pre- 
vails among the population of any country, it ceases to be a 
matter of surprise that crime should abound in all its most 
dark and tenible features. The wonder would be if it should 
be otherwise. 

But there is another field for inquiry, beside the Criminal 
Calendars. The argument against which I am contending, 
refers to the domain of vice and immorality, rather than to 

* The original is as follows : — 

1851, addi 8 Smbre, dal S. Monte. 
Ho ricevuto io sottoscritto assistente deUa veneranda Fabrica del 
sacro Monte di Yarallo dal Signer Hobart Seymour, I'elemosina di lire, 
2 : *?. di Mil. per Messe unada celebrarsi all' altare privilegiato quoti- 
diano perpetuo della Beattissima Yergine Maria. 

In fede. Agno Bertoli. 

This form of receipt is printed^ and is surmounted by a drawing of 
the high altar. The term ** elemosina," is that usually applied to 
moneys granted for masses, for the relief of souls in purgatory. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 81 

the province of criminal police ; and as that argument is, that 
we have sunk to such a depth of depra^dty in Protestant Eng- 
land, that it becomes desirable to introduce the peculiar 
checks, which the convents, and nunneries, and sisterhoods, 
and confessionals, and, generally, the institutions of the 
Church of Rome, impose upon vice and immorality ; so we 
must now proceed to examine, whether these have indeed suc- 
ceeded so well in Roman Catholic countries, as to induce us 
to consent to try the perilous experiment of their influence in 
England. 

In turning to this part of our subject, I would bear in mind 
that there are many circumstances which tend to real and ac- 
tual immorality, besides the defects of religious principle. 
There are sins that may be said, in a measure, to belong to 
latitude and longitude, to the domain of geography, rather 
than to the province of churches. The vice of excess in spir- 
ituous drink is greatest as you ascend, and least as you de- 
scend, in the scale of latitude. The nearer we approach the 
poles the more it prevails, and the nearer we touch the equa- 
tor the more it disappears. The vice of polygamy with all its 
attendant evils, seem mainly governed^ by longitude, for the 
further we travel to welcome the sunrise in the east the more 
it prevails, and the more we seek the sunset of the far west, 
the more surely it vanishes away. It must not be said, or 
thought for a moment, that religion has not its full influences 
in restraining both of these odious tendencies, but a wise man 
will see and feel, that in estimating the comparative morality 
of a people^ it is necessary to take into account the influence 
of climate, the geographical position, and the civil institutions 
of nations. The essential morality or immorality of any act, 
must of course be determined exclusively by the word of reve- 
lation. But in estimating the comparative morality of widely^ 
■separated and far difierent peoples, there are other elements 
that deserve consideration in their measure. Religion is the 
main element, but climate, and government, and civil institu- 
tions, are items of no slight importance. 

There are institutions, or rather customs in Northern and 



32 MORAL RESULTS 

Western Germany, where Protestantism prevails, respecting 
marriage, by no means favorable to purity of morals. And 
there are other and different laws, local in their nature, that 
greatly tend, in Eastern and Southern Germany, which is 
chiefly Roman Catholic, to the injury of marriage, and the 
promotion of immorality. The Poor Law of England has in 
like manner too often operated unfavorably for the morality 
of the population. And, therefore, in forming an estimate of 
the comparative morality or immorality of different nations, 
w^e are bound to retain in memory that there are other 
elements, besides their respective religions, to be taken into 
consideration. 

It is with a full sense of the weight due to all such con- 
siderations, that I propose now to compare the morality of 
Protestant England with that of Roman Catholic countries; 
that so we may learn w^h ether the convents, and nunneries, 
and confessionals, and sisterhoods of Rome, have proved such 
effectual restraints upon \nce and immorality, as may make us 
desire to introduce them into Eno-land. 

It must not for a moment be supposed, that I charge the 
Church of Rome with avowedly countenancing vice or im- 
morality. She does neither the one nor the other. And I 
know of few things I would deprecate more distinctly, than 
being thought to give currency to such an accusation. The 
charge which I do bring against her, is totally different from 
this. It is, that whereas all religions, whether true or false, 
Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan, Pagan, and all churches, 
whether Roman, Greek or Protestant, impose certain re- 
straints more or less strong on vice or immorality, and offer 
some principles more or less efficacious to protect against 
temptation ; those restraints and those principles which the 
Church of Rome offers are weaker than those of other churches. 
I do not charge her with countenancing vice, but I do charge 
her with placing weaker restraints upon temptation. I do 
not accuse her wuth encouraging immorality, but I do accuse 
her of advancing weaker principles, as a protection in the 
time of temptation. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 33 

The result of this state of things is precisely what might be 
expected. Where there are no special temptations, there a 
Eoman Catholic peasantry will be found as moral and vir- 
tuous, generally speaking, as a Protestant peasantry. But 
wherever temptations exist, as in large towns, crowded cities, 
localities that surround a royal court, places where wealth 
panders to the passions of the rich, and corrupts the morals of 
the poor ; in those regions where wealth and power go hand 
in hand with corruption and vice, there where the most seduc- 
tive temptations exist — there where the principles and re- 
straints of the different religions are most tested ; it is uni- 
versally found that the religion of Kome is weaker than our 
Protestant Christianity. It is not that either the one religion 
or the other sanctions or encourages sin, but it is, that while 
there are no temptations, the two systems exhibit no opposite 
results ; but where there are temptations, there the restraints 
and principles of Eomanism are incomparably weaker and less 
efficacious than those of Protestant Christianity. 

In carrying out. therefore, our present inquiry, it would be 
a waste of time to examine, even if it were practicable, either 
the bogs of Roman Catholic Ireland, or the highlands of 
Protestant Scotland — the valleys of the Roman Catholic Ap- 
pennines, or the heights of the Protestant Alps. These are 
regions too remote from those most seductive temptations 
which test the power of religious principles, and in such re- 
gions the population of all countries are very much on an 
equality. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the scenes of 
wealth, and power, and commerce, and manufacture and popu- 
lation — to the dense and crowded towns and cities, where 
temptation unvails all her allurements and seductions, and 
where religious principle is most sorely and severely tried. 

I shall commence, therefore, with that best evidence we 
possess, namely, the number of illegitimate births, as com- 
pared with the legitimate, in the great capitals of Europe. 
Almost every country has statistical tables of the yearly 
amount of births, distinguishing the legitimate from the ille- 
gitimate, and the numbers I shall here adduce, shall be thoso 



34 MORAL RESULTS 

of the respective governmental returns. The shade of a suspi- 
cion can not attach to these. 

And first, for Protestant London — the city of the whole 
world in which there is the wealthiest aristocracy, and the 
largest amount of gentry — where there is more commerce, 
more wealth, a larger population, and greater temptations in 
number, and amount, and variety, than in any other capital 
in the universe, and where, therefore, one might fairly expect 
the largest proportinate amount of immorality. 

•The Registrar-General is required to lay before Parliament 
and the sovereign a statement in detail every year of the 
number of births throughout England and Wales ; specifying 
what proportion of such births may have been illegitimate. 

The return for 1851, states that the total number of births 
in the London division, with a population of 2,362,236, was 
'78,300, and of these: 

The legitimate were . . . 75,097 
And the illegitimate . . . 3,203 

This shows the illegitimate births to be about four per 
cent., that is, that in every hundred births there are, omitting 
fractions, ninety-six legitimate children and four illegitimate. 
In other words, every twenty-fifth child is illegitimate. 

The return of the Registrar-General for the preceding year 
gives a similar state of things. The total number of births, 
omitting the still-born, was 72,612, and of these: 

The legitimate were . . .69,784 
And the illegitimate . . . 2,828 

This shows the illegitimate births, omitting fractions, to be 
FOUR per cent. ; and this seems the true number for London. 

And next for Roman Catholic Paris. M. Guerry, in his 
able work, '' Statistique Morale de la France,^' states : " The 
illegitimate births in the city of Paris are to the legitimate as 
one to l.xVo- We reckon therefore in Paris, one illegitimate 
birth to a little less than two legitimate ones. This propor- 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 35 

tion whicli, it is true, some departments of the interior in- 
crease, leads to the conclusion, that in the capital more than 
one tliird part of the native population consists of bastards^'' 
This, which v/as published twenty years ago, presents a picture 
of immorality and vice for which one is scarcely prepared. 
It fixes the illegitimate births at more than thirty-five per cent. 
And now for the present day. 

The Prefects of the several Prefectures in France are obliged 
to register all the births of their respective Prefectures, dis- 
tinguishing between the legitimate and the illegitimate. These 
returns, as respects Paris, are published by the Bureau des 
Longitudes, 

The returns for 1850, give the total number of births at 
Paris for that year as 29,628, of these : 

The legitimate were . . . 19,921 
And the illegitimate . . . 9,107 

This shows the illegitimate to be about thirty-three per 
cent. In other words, almost every third child is illegiti- 
mate ! 

The returns for 1851 are very similar. They give the total 
number of births at 32,324, of these : 

The legitimate were . . . 21,689 
And the illegitimate . . . 10,636 

This gives a result very much the same as that of the pre- 
ceding year. Almost every third child born in Paris is ille- 
gitimate — a proportion but little better than that which pre- 
vailed thirty years ago ; so that thirty-three per cent, may 
be set down as the number for Paris. 

The city of Brussels, essentially Eoman Catholic as it is, 
the capital of the most truly and sincerely religious of all the 
Roman Catholic nations of Europe, comes next in order. The 
returns are made to the government, and are published by the 
Secretary of State.* The returns for the year 1850, which 

* " Population, Mouvement de I'Etat Civil, pendant TAnn^e 1850, 
Publie par le Ministre do I'lnterieur. Bruxelles, 1851." 



36 MORAL RESULTS 

are the last published, give the total number of births in 
Brussels at 5281, and of these : 

The legitimate were . . . 3,448 
And the illegitimate . . . 1,833 

This is significant of an amount of vice still greater than 
that of Paris. It is about thirty-five per cent. More than 
one third of the population is illegitimate ! 

And yet even this, sad and melancholy as it is, is better 
than the condition of Roman Catholic Munich — the capital 
of Bavaria. It is the unhappy lot of that city, that, although 
its management is under the influence of the priesthood of 
Rome, that influence has been directed to strengthen the 
priestly power in the State, rather than to improve those civil 
institutions, that throw diflSculties in the way of marriage. 
By the returns last published, and which contain those for the 
year 1851,* the total number of births in Munich was 3464 ; 
and of these : 

The legitimate were . . I,1r62 

And the illegitimate . . . 1,102 

There is here a picture of vice and immorality for which 
one is scarcely prepared in a city professing itself Christian, 
and exclusively under the influence of those institutions of the 
Church of Rome, whose influence is supposed to be so salutary. 
The illegitimate births are about forty-eight per cent. Nearly 
one half of the population is illegitimate ! 

And next, we turn to Roman Catholic Vienna. The re- 
turns from this city give a painful and distressing picture of 
the gradual deterioration of the moral principle. The amount 
of vice and immorality is steadily increasing. In London and 
even in Paris, they exhibit an improvement — however slight, 
there is an improvement upon the past, but unhappily it 

* " Beitrage zur Statistick des Konigreichs Bayern, Yon Hermann, 
Munchen, 1854." 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 87 

is the reverse at Vienna. The total number of births in that 
city in 1841 was 16,682. Of these : 

The legitimate were . . . 8,941 
And the illegitimate . . . •?, 741 

ISTearly one half ! And as this was worse than at former 
periods, so year by year the frightful depravity deepens and 
blackens, and seems to threaten the overthrow, as by a deluge 
of vice, of every appearance and pretense of morality. In 
1849, the number of births was 19,241 ; and of these : 

The legitimate were . . . 8,881 
And the illegitimate . . . 10,360 

The number of illegitimate births exceeded the legitimate ! 
This is so revolting and monstrous that it may well be deemed 
fabulous and beyond all credibility in a professedly Christian 
city. And yet there is no clearer evidence of any fact under 
the sun than of this fact. There is connected with the Im- 
perial Government of Austria a department, called " Die Di- 
rection der Administrativen Statistik," in other words, an Im- 
perial Commission for collecting and publishing the statistics 
of the empire. The tables of this Direction have been pub- 
lished with the remarks of the " Ministerial Secretar" in two 
volumes, at Vienna, in 1852. I purchased them in that city 
in 1853. These tables extend from the year 1830 to the 
year 1851. And the Government Secretary carefully calcu- 
lates and gives the yearly averages of the first nine years ; he 
then gives the averages of the second nine years' period ; and 
afterward the average of the remaining three years. His re- 
turns, comparing the illegitimate with the whole number of 
births in Vienna, are as follows, omitting the fractions : 

The yearly average from 1830 to 1838, forty-four per cent. 

" '* *' " 1839 to 1847, FORTY-EIGHT '' 

" " " *' 1848 to 1851, FIFTY-ONE '' 

Such are the returns in the Imperial offices at Vienna. 



33 MORAL RESULTS 

They exhibit a state of society in the Austrian capital that 
seems without parallel in the whole world, except perhaps, in 
some of her own provinces. More than one half of the popu- 
lation are illegitimate ! 

My present object, however, is simply to state on the 
authority of the governmental returns, the facts as they exist 
— to set forth the moral state of London, Paris, Brussells, 
Munich and Vienna, in order to learn whether the restraints 
which the Church of Eome imposes upon immorality — whether 
the convents and nunneries and confessionals and other insti- 
tutions of that church have so succeeded in those capitals in 
lessening or suppressing vice and immorality, as to lead to the 
conviction that they are more effective than the restraints of 
our Protestant and English Christianity. 

The following concise summary will enable us to form a 
judgment upon this subject. It refers exclusively to capital 
cities. 

The proportion of illegitimate births is : 

In Roman Catholic Paris thirty-three per cent. 

" " Brussells thirty-five " 

" " Munich forty-eight " 

" " Vienna fifty-one " 

In Protestant London four " 

These figures are astounding. It almost requires an effort 
to believe them. They seem almost invented for the occasion : 
and yet they are all official and governmental returns, as cer- 
tain and authoritative as such records can possibly be. 

Nor is it to be supposed that this proportion is confined to 
the capital cities of Europe. If the returns from the depart- 
ments or counties, in which those capitals are situated, be ex- 
amined — as Middlesex, and the Department of the Seine, and 
Lower Austria, etc., it will be found that results somewhat 
similar are exhibited. The same remark applies to the manu- 
facturing cities, and to the naval ports of the several nations. 
If Birmingham be compared with Lyons, or Sheffield with 
Liege, or Plymouth with Trieste, the results have the same 
grand characteristic in favor of the moral state of Protestant 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



m 



England. And all tending to show that however the mem- 
bers of the two religions may seem on an equality in the rural 
districts, where they are remote from temptation ; yet in all 
those localities which are the scenes of commerce and manu- 
facture and wealth — in all those localities which are the 
haunts of temptation, and possess the elements of seduction, 
the motives and restraints of Protestant Christianity are incom- 
parably more effective than those of the Church of Rome. 

It would be interesting as well as instructive, to compare 
the state of a given number of cities in Protestant England 
with a similar number in Roman Catholic countries. I am 
not in possession of the official reports of the Prefects of the 
various cities of France : and I am unwilling to advance any 
thing unless on official and governmental records of authority. 
And therefore I am not in a position to make this comparison 
as between the cities of England and the cities of France. I 
much regret this ; but I am in possession of the governmental 
returns of the cities of Germany, and of those of Italy, and 
shall exhibit the comparison. 

I take the figures for England from " The Report of the 
Registrar General for the year 1847," as it contains all the 
details as to the illegitimate births, more fully than the ordin- 
ary abstract. And I take the figures for Austria from the 
ffovernmental returns in " Die Statistik .des Oesterreichischen 
Kaiserstaates," as published by the Ministerial Secretary in 
1852. I omit fracti ons : 

Protestant England. 
Bristol and Clifton about 4 per cent. 
Bradford " 8 " 



Roman Catholic Austria. 
Troppan about 26 per cent 



Birmingham " 
Brighton ** 


6 

1 


Cheltenham " 


1 


Exeter *' 


8 


Liverpool ** 
Manchester & Salford 
Plymouth *' 
Portsea " 


6 
1 
5 
5 



Zara ' 


' 30 


Inhspruck ' 


' 22 


Laibach ' 


' 38 


Brunn * 


' 42 


Lintz * 


' 46 


Prague * 


* 4:1 


Lemberg * 


i 4t 


Klagenfort ' 


' 56 


Gratz * 


' 65 



63 



419 



4# MORAL RESULTS 

The foregoing series represent fairly the various classes of 
cities in England, and those of Austria represent the most 
populous in that empire. The contrast between them as to 
the amount of illegitimate births is sufficiently striking. The 
average in England is little more than six per cent : that is, 
in one hundred births, there are nearly ninety-four legitimate 
children, and only a little more than six illegitimate^ while the 
average in the cities of Austria is about forty-two per cent, 
that is, in each hundred births, there are fifty-eight legitimate 
and forty-two illegitimate children ! On the average of the 
last three years, Vienna, Gratz and Klagenfort have obtained 
the extraordinary distinction, that the illegitimate births abso-* 
lutely exceed the number of the legitimate ! The illegitimate 
are: 



In Vienna . 


• 


• 51 per cent. 


In Klagenfort 


• 


. 56 " 


In Gratz 


, 


. 65 " 



This is, probably, without parallel in the world. And yet 
in all those cities the Church of Rome has her most ample 
development. 

The cities of Italy do not present on the surface so striking 
a contrast, but one of great importance to our present inquiry. 
I take the fio;ures from Mittermaier's collection of Italian sta- 
tistics, having been collected by him from the governmental 
tables ; and also from the work on the statistics of the Austrian 
empire, so often cited already, and which, of course, has also 
the statistics of Lombardy. 

It is impossible, from the very nature of Italian life, to 
obtain any thing like an accurate estimate of the illegitimate 
births. This arises from the fact observed by all travelers 
acquainted with that country, that the greatest amount of 
immorality prevails among the married women — that it is, at 
least, very difficult among the unmarried ; and the reason is 
this : there is a feeling very general among the Italians that 
young girls, arriving at a marriageable age, are unable to pre- 
serve their own purity, and will, probably, fall unless watched 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 41 

and guarded with the greatest vigilance. It is the vice of 
Italian life to have low and dishonoring opinions of women, as 
if she was frail — intensely frail — so frail, that the opportunity 
for sinning is too often regarded as evidence enough of having 
sinned ; guilt is supposed, and honor lost, in every case where 
risk of either was regarded as possible ; so that it is thought 
that marriage, or a convent, or the strictest watchfulness, is 
the only real protection for a maiden. Her own moral and 
religious principle seems never thought of ! This watchfulness 
continues till marriage, and the society of young men is ex- 
cluded till some one is selected for marriage ; and thus a 
dragon-like vigilance over the unmarried, prevents the possi- 
bility of illegitimate births ; while the state of married life is 
too often such a tissue of intrigue, that, however illegitimate 
the births are known to be, they must, from the simple fact of 
the mother's marriage, be registered as legitimate.^ 

And yet it is this very phase of Italian life, that places in 
its strongest relief the real extent of immorality-. In the 
rural districts, in the village homes, in the lonely valleys, and 
remote districts, the simple peasantry are as pure and virtuous 
as any in Europe. They are removed far away from the 
haunts of temptation. But in the cities and towns of Italy, 
where temptation exists, and where vigilance is necessarily re- 
laxed, we find the i*esults the same as in other Roman Catholic 
countries. I shall here set down the five capital cities of 
Italy, and contrast them with five cities of England in refer- 
ence to the number of illeo^itimate births. I omit fractions : 

Peotestant England. Koman Catholic Italy. 
Liverpool 6 per cent. Turin 20 per cent. 

Bristol and Clifton 4 " " Milan 35 " " 

Plymouth 5 " " Yenice 11 '' *' 

Brighton 7 " " Florence 20 " '* 

Manchester 1 '' " Naples 16 " " 

29 108 

* It is stated that a prodigious number of illegitimate births are pre- 
vented by the priests, who learn the state of the young women in the 



42 MORAL RESULTS 

This IS a higli figure, consiclericg the peculiarities of Italian 
life, by reason of which, notwithstanding the enormous im- 
morality that prevails, there must always be comparatively a 
small amount of births legally illegitimate. The English 
cities present an average of six per cent, and the Italians an 
average of twenty-one per cent. These figures show that 
the convents and nunneries and confessionals and sisterhoods, 
and all the other appliances of Rome for the restraint of vice, 
have so far proved unsuccessful, as that they offer to us no 
inducement to encourage them in England. 

But I have said nothing of Rome — the city of the church ! 
I have not numbered it among others, because I have been 
unable to procure any governmental or authoritative account 
of its illegitimate births, and I am unv/illing on so grave a 
question, to state any thing unless on the most certain author- 
ity. Perhaps it could scarcely be expected, that an ecclesias- 
tical city with a Pope, many cardinals, twenty-nine bishops, 
1,280 Priests, 2,092 monks, 1,698 nuns, and 537 ecclesiasti- 
cal pupils in the year 1852, as appears in the census of that 
year, should publish a record of illegitimate births. At 
least I have failed to procure it, but at the same time we 
might expect that they might supply us with some record of 
their virtues, their piety, and their charities. To this they 
certainly have responded. They point to the Foundling Estab- 
lishments, and with a natural pride repeat the number of 
helpless little foundling children, saved, fed, clothed, and edu- 
cated by the monks and nuns of Rome. In the exhibition of 
such charity they forget that it is also an exhibition of the 
vices of their city. 

In the Italian statistics collected by Mitt^rmaier, we have 
the number of foundling children received into il S. Spirito il 

confessional, and then use their influence to effect a marriage before 
the birth. It is said that the females of Italy are more open and can- 
did in confession than any other women in the world ; and certainly 
it would be well^ if the priests never made a worse use of their inform- 
ation than to effect a marriage. Alas I the morals of Italian society 
tell a different tale. 



OP THE EOMISH SYSTEM. 43 

Conservatorio, and other establisliments for foundlings. He 
gives the numbers received during a series of ten years. The 
total was 31,689. And this vast multitude is maintained by 
the endowments of these establishments, and with the attend- 
ance of monks and nuns. This total, distributed through the 
ten years, gives a yearly avarage of 3,160 foundlings exposed 
in the city of Rome ! 

But, in order to form a just estimate of the wonderful enor- 
mity of this, it is necessary to bear in mind that the average 
population of Rome — apart from the monks and nuns, the 
bishops and priests, and other ecclesiastics who are to be 
assumed to be a non-productive population, and who in many 
thousands are ever coming and going from and to every part 
of Italy — ^is about 130,000 souls. The actual population is 
sometimes considerably more, and sometimes far less. In 
1800, it was 153,004; and in 1813, it was only 117,882. 
And in 1836 it rose again to 153,678. In this last year, the 
births were 2,258 boys, and 2,115 girls; being a total of 
4,373 births, as appears by Bowring's Report, as laid on the 
table in the House of Commons. 

The result therefore is, that while the total number of births 
is 4,373, the total number of foundlings is 3,160 ! This may 
argue unexampled benevolence on the part of monks and 
nuns, in pro\dding for so many ; but it also a3:gues either a 
monstrous amount of illegitimate births, or at least an unpar- 
alelled number of cruel and unnatural mothers that could thus 
expose their new-born offspring. 

They have a profane jest at Rome against the English, and 
other strangers, who can not admire too much the loving and 
motherly care exhibited by the nuns toward these little out- 
casts. They say, that the English and such strangers are like 
Pharoah's daughter, who, in her simplicity, often admired the 
loving and motherly caie exhibited by his nurse to the infant 
Moses ! 

But what, it may be asked, becomes of all these little ones — 
especially the foundling girls, in after life ? We read that in 
one year there were forty childi'en, out of the 3,160 reclaimed 



44 MORAL RESULTS 

by their parents. It is stated in Bowring's Report, on the 
authority of Morichini, that seventy-three per cent, of these 
foundhngs die in these establishments ! This certainly dis- 
poses of a large amount of these helpless little ones; but still 
it may be asked, what becomes of the multitude that remains 
in after-life ? This inquiry can only be answered by authority. 
I could not myself attempt it ; I shall therefore give it from 
the evidence of the Rev. Francis S. Mahoney, a Roman 
Catholic priest who resided twenty years at Rome, and whose 
evidence was given before the select committee of the British 
House of Commons, on the Mortmain Acts. His evidence 
will be found appended to the Report of the Committee, as 
printed by order of the House in 1851. 

He was questioned as to the endowments existing at Rome, 
for the purpose of giving small marriage-portions to young 
girls, to enable them to marry. He says, page 407 : 

" In Rome, that form of charity appeared to be the one 
recommended to dying sinners, sensualists, and persons who 
had led a disreputable life ; and a great means of repairing 
the evil they had done during life, in the seduction of young 
girls, was to endow, on their death-beds, portions for maidens, 
to enable them to get honestly married. There was no doubt 
a pious and benevolent notion presiding over this ; but on in- 
quiring into the practical working of the system, I found it to 
be any thing but satisfactory. Most of these marriages, as far 
as my inquiry went among the poorer classes of the people, 
who were principally benefited by the endowments, rarely 
turned out any thing praiseworthy or desirable. The selection 
of the husband was rarely left either to the maiden, or to the 
family, or to the parents of the maiden. The patronage of 
these portions was vested in the most incongruous way, either 
in convents, or confraternities of laymen, in their corporate 
capacity, or in the Spanish embassador [for maidens of Span- 
ish birth.] Instead of being a charity, the prevalence of these 
portions was a regular nuisance in the social system, and to 
the community generally. First, because a maiden who could 
not claim the patronage, through the tortuous ways in which 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 45 

that favoritism was to be obtained, had no chance at all, and 
she was laid on the- shelf; while an intriguing and forward 
person, and every way undeserving, obtained through various 
objectionable tricks, the preference either of those confrater- 
nities, or of those convents, or those parties, and they ap- 
peared of course in the market as rivals of those who were 
only virtuous and deserving parties. But there were other 
evils, still more revolting, which were these : The parties 
having the patronage of the portions^ making a very nefarious 
use of the influence it gave them over the minds of the candi- 
dates for matrimony ; the consequences being notoriously re- 
marked among the lower orders^ and any thing hut satisfactory 
to lovers of decency,^'' 

A strange account this, of the convents and confraternities ; 
that monks of convents and friars of confraternities should 
make this revolting use of their patronage ! 

He adds a little further : 

" The idea of preventing a girl going into a nunnery is con- 
sidered shameful. Therefore it is in vain to say that the en- 
dowments is to favor marriage, because it would be scouted as 
never being intended to operate against entrance into a nun- 
nery ; and in point of fact most of the Roman nunneries do 
receive their recruits through the medium of those endow- 
ments intended for matrimony ; because all those girls who 
choose nunneries, are entitled to dower in preference to those 
who merely ask it to marry 1" 

In such a state of things, where the monks of the convents 
and the friars of the confraternities make such a revolting 
use of their patronage, and then place the girls in nunneries, 
there can be no surprise that while births are 4,373, the 
foundlings are 3,160 a year. 

All this process of argument, however, is open in some 
measure to the objection that it is scarcely fair to compare 
England with such remote and ditferently-circumstanced coun- 
tries as Austria or Italy ; and the truest and fairest mode of 
testing the efficacy of Romanism on one hand, and of Protest- 
antism on the other, in restraining vice and immorality, would 



46 MORAL RESULTS 

be by comparing two bordering countries — two countries pro- 
fessing the different religions — and so circumstanced as to be 
the same in climate and in race. England and Italy are too 
widely different in every thing to be fitly compared, and there- 
fore the question should be tested on such neighboring coun- 
tries as Austria and Prussia ; as ha\dng the same climate and 
the same race, and even speaking the same language ; the 
former being Romanist and the latter Protestant. 

This objection is entitled to considerable weight, and the 
suggestion that the question should be tested by the moral 
conditions of Austria and Prussia, is fair and reasonable. 

The yearly average of illegitimate births in Roman Catho- 
lic Vienna, as already seen, is 51 per cent. 

The yearly average of illegitimate births in Protestant 
Berlin, is 18 per cent. 

This is a difference sufficiently marked to decide the 
question, at least so far as the respective capitals are con- 
cerned. 

But it may be brought to a fuller and larger test by com- 
paring, not cities selected here and there from the two coun- 
tries, but the ten largest and most populous cities of both. 
The results are as follows, omitting fractions : 



In Roman Catholic Austria. 


In Protestant Prussia. 


Vienna 


51; 


per cent. 


Berlin 


18] 


per cent 


Prague 


Al 


(( 


Breslau 


26 


(( 


Linz 


46 


u 


Cologne 


10 


It 


Milan 


32 


u 


Konigsburg 


28 


u 


Klagenfort 


56 


a 


Dantzic 


20 


u 


Gratz 


65 


n 


Magdeburg 


11 


u 


Lembach 


4t 


(t 


Aix-la-Chapelle 


) 4 


a 


Laibach 


38 


u 


Stettin 


13 


u 


Zara 


80 


u 


Posen 


16 


u 


Bran 


42 


tl 


Potsdam 


12 


u 



454 158 

If then the question before us be, a^ to the efficacy of the 
restraints of Romanism on one hand, or of those of Protest- 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 47 

antisin on tlie other, in restraining immorality and vice, and 
if this question is to be decided by a comparison of Roman 
CathoHc Austria, with Protestant Prussia ; two countries in- 
habited by the same race, and speaking the same language, 
and situated in adjoining districts, the decision must be gov- 
erned by the fact, that taking the ten most populous cities of 
Austria, and the ten most populous cities of Prussia :* 

The result in Roman Catholic Austria is forty-fiye per cent. 
And in Protestant Prussia sixteen " 

These results must be left to speak for themselves. 

But this process of illustration may be carried further. It 
is often asserted that the Protestant countries, as Norway, 
Sweden, Saxony, Hanover, AVurtemburg, are equally demoral- 
ized, if not actually worse, than the Roman Gathohc countries 
I have not one word to offer in defense or extenuation of them. 
All I have to say is, that if in these there be indeed a depth 
of immorality, there is in the Roman Catholic countries a 
depth that is lower still. I boldly say, that if any man name 
the worst of all the Protestant countries, I care not which, I 
will name a Roman Catholic country that is still worse. 

Let Protestant Norway be named; its population in 1835 
was 1,194,610 ; and the proportion of illegitimate births was, 
at the last return, from seven to eight per cent. Let Roman 
Catholic Styria, a province with a similar amount of popula- 
tion, 1,006,971, be set against this. The illegitimate births 
are twenty-four per cent ! 

Let Sweden be examined, with its Protestant population of 
2,983,144, in 1855. Its illegitimate births were about seven 
per cent. And then let Upper and Lower Austria be set be- 
side it, with a Roman Catholic population of nearly the same 
amount, 2,244,363. Its illegitimate births are twenty-five 
per cent. ! 

* The figures respecting Prussia, are taken from the returns, pub- 
lished by order of the Government in Berhn only two years ago. "Die 
Tabellen, etc." are in the Ubrary of the British Museum. 



48 MORAL RESULTS 

If Saxony, with its Protestant population, exhibits so fright- 
ful a spectacle as that its illegitimate births are fourteen 'per 
cent,^ then let Carinthia with its Roman Catholic population 
be set against it ; its illegitimate births are about thirty-Jive 
per cent, ! 

If in Denmark, with its Protestant population, the illegiti- 
mate births are less than ten per cent., there is the Province of 
Saltzberg, with its Roman Cathohc population, where the ille- 
gitimate births are above twenty-two per cent. 

If Hanover be referred to, and among its Protestant popula- 
tion, the illegitimate births are ten per cent., then let the Prov- 
ince around Trieste, with its Roman Catholic population, be 
remembered; its illegitimate births are above twenty-three 
per cent, ! 

And, finally, let Wurtemberg and Bavaria be compared. 
They are two kingdoms lying alongside each other, with this 
only difierence, that in the former the Protestants are two 
thirds and the Roman Catholics one third of the population ; 
while in the latter the Roman Catholics are three fourths, 
while the Protestants are only one fourth of the population. 
The result is, that in the former, where the Protestants ai'e the 
more numerous, the illegitimate births are about twelve per 
cent. The illegitimate were 8,859, and the legitimate 66,579 ; 
while in the latter, where the Roman Catholics form the large 
majority, the illegitimate births are twenty-four per cent,, that 
is, the illegitimate were 30,729, and the legitimate 118,456. 

In short, name any Protestant country or any Protestant 
city in Europe, and let its depth of vice and immorality be 
measured and named, and I will name a Roman Catholic 
country or city whose depths of vice or immorality are lower 
still. 

And yet there is an important element to be considered in 
all calculations as to the amount of illegitimacy in the Prot- 
estant districts of Germany. 

The returns as to the number of illegitimate births in Prus- 
sia and in the lesser Protestant States, must be received with a 
consideration. This consideration goes to distinguishing be- 



J 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 49 

tween the nominal and the actual amount. It is this : — In 
Germany, as in Scotland, the Protestant population are Pres- 
byterian, and have cast aside as useless much that was form- 
erly associated in their minds, with the evils of episcopal 
courts. Accordingly, both in Germany and in Scotland, it was 
held that marriage was purely a civil and not a religious con- 
tract. This public feeling became law in Scotland. A mar- 
riage-contract, or acknowledgment of marriage in the presence 
of witnesses, was held as a valid marriage in law, and the off- 
spring legitimate. But in Germany there was a difference. 
The feeling of many of the people was, and is, that when the 
parties are formally, and in the presence of ^vitnesses, affianced 
to each other, by a formal act of betrothal, the marriage is 
sufficiently valid ; and, accordingly, many marriages go no 
further. They remain as they do in Scotland. But the law 
goes further, and demands,, very rightly, as I think, further 
formalities, or it will not recognize the marriage as valid. 
The consequence of this state of things is, that many chil- 
dren are returned in the police returns to Government as ille- 
gitimate ; — the law declares them to be such — though their 
parents think them to be legitimate, and they are regarded as 
such by the popular feeling of the country. This state of 
things gives the appearance of a larger amount of illegitimate 
births in the Protestant states than would otherwise be the 
case. This, however, never has, and indeed never can affect 
the Roman Catholic population, who regard marriage as a 
sacrament, to be celebrated only by a priest ; but this it is 
which explains the anomaly, that while the Austrian Roman 
Catholics are incomparably less moral than the Prussian popu- 
lation, there is the appearance of less immorality among the 
Prussian Roman Catholics than among the Prussian Protest- 
ants. It has arisen from those peculiar views respecting the 
forms of betrothal and marriage, by which many of the lower 
orders, in the rural districts especially, regard the betrothal, 
solemnly made in the presence of the families of both parties, 
as tantamount to a real marriage. 

And now, to bring this paper to a conclusion, 

3 



60 MORAL RESULTS 

It has been stated at the commencement, that the object of 
this paper was not to charge the Church of Rome with en- 
couraging crime, and above all, the crime of murder ; nor yet 
to accuse her of teaching immorality, or inculcating vice ; 
neither did it enter into the writer's object, to draw any con- 
trast between the moral or immoral character of the Church 
of Rome on the one hand, and the Church of England on the 
other. The real object was, to show that whatever were the 
restraints of the Church of Rome upon crime and immorality", 
and whatever were the encouragements to struggle against 
temptation, they are proved by experience to be less effective 
than those w^hich are presented to us in the Church of Eng- 
land. And yet more, the object was to prove more especially, 
that convents and nunneries and confessionals and sisterhoods 
and other Romish institutions have proved so inefficacious for 
restraining immorality and vice in. those Roman Catholic 
countries where they have been supported by the government, 
and where they have been a part of the law of the land, that 
they afford no encouragement to the introduction of them into 
England. 

Whatever other inferences are deducible from the facts and 
figures already given, I leave to others. 

I have only to repeat what I have said before, that in judg- 
ing of the criminal calendar of a nation, and in forming an 
opinion of the morals of a people, there are other elements to 
be taken into consideration, besides the religion or church of 
a country. The political institutions — the social laws — the 
municipal establishments — the physical condition — the amount 
of wealth, commerce and manufacture — the degree and kind 
of employments — the climate and local position — all these 
are elements, more or less important, as being fraught with 
more or less temptation, in arriving at a true and just con- 
clusion. The rehgion of a people will always be the main 
element that governs and influences their morals ; but at the 
same time, there is an influence also exercised by those other 
elements which ought never to be lost sight of, when we 
would form a just and equitable opinion. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 51 

It is true that it has been the unhappy fate of Roman 
Catholic countries that they have not such valuable and ef- 
ficient laws and institutions as are found in Protestant coun- 
tries. The facts and figures given above are demonstrative of 
this. At least if we are not to attribute the crime and immo- 
rality that prevails in them, so much greater as it is, than in 
Protestant countries ; — if we are not to attribute it to some- 
thing most defective in their religious system, we must at- 
tribute it to their defective laws, constitutions, and institu- 
tions. And then the question — and a most awkward question 
— arises, as to how we can account for the fact, that the law^s, 
constitutions and institutions of Roman Catholic countries 
are more defective than in Protestant countries ? And espe- 
cially in the Papal States, where the civil institutions and the 
ecclesiastical laws are all alike in the same hands, and where 
the pontiff can change or reform them at his pleasure? 
If the evil is to be attributed to defective civil institution, 
it is an evil that it is always in his power to remedy. But it 
is to be feared that the real seat of the evil is in the religious 
system. 

The question however, is one too difiScult for me to solve to 
the satisfaction of all men. I have no difiiculty whatever in 
my own mind. At all events, it seems certain that the 
greater amount of crime and immorality in Roman Catholic 
countries must be attributed either to the immediate action of 
the Church of Rome, or to her remote influence on the laws 
and institutions of every land where she has been established. 

A deep conviction of this must be my apology for the pub- 
lication of these papers, earnestly desiring, as a lover of my 
country, and as a lover of morality and an enemy of crime, to 
protect the people of England against the introduction of the 
convents and nunneries and confessionals and sisterhoods of 
Rome. They might soon lead us — I do not say they certainly 
would — into the same abyss of murders and immoralitties 
that pollute other lands under the influence of the Church of 
Rome. 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



THE READING OF THE HOLY SCmPTURES. 

The Custom of Canting a Corpse — ^The Eight of the People to the Holy Scriptures— 
The Objection arising from their Supposed Difficulty — Answer connected with 
the Language of the Mass — The real Objection is their being too plainly opposed 
to Rome — This Illustrated in several Particulars : as, Keading the Scriptures, the 
Worship of Images, the Marriage of the Clergy, Half-Communion, Latin Prayers, 
Worship of Saints, Confession to Priests — The Objection as derived from Tradi- 
tion — The Objection against Private Interpretation — The Duty as well as Eight 
of Eeading the Holy Scriptures. 

At a distance of some five or six miles from where I resided, 
in a remote parish in the country, was the mansion of a gen- 
tleman of considerable property. His wife and family were 
much interested in religious things, and he himself felt that 
the progress or improvement of the population, was impeded 
by the effects of Romanism in the peculiar forms, which it as- 
sumed in that part of the country. This family were very 
kind and attentive to me, and at their request I visited them 
once every week. They arranged that there should be a con- 
gregation composed of the family, the domestics, the laborers 
and neighboring cottagers — such as wished to attend — assem- 
bled on the appointed evening, and that I should meet them 
and pray with them, and address them in somewhat the na- 
ture of a cottage lecture. 

As I was riding over there one day, I observed at the cross- 
roads that a funeral had just stopped. Being always unwill- 
ing to hurt the harmless, though superstitious prejudices of 



54 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the simple peasantry, I at once dismounted, and quietly led 
my horse by the funeral, stopping to exchange a few words of 
courtesy with the parties. My horse was nearly Avhite, and as 
there is a superstitious feeling — connected I believe with the 
vision of Death on the pale horse — as to some ill-luck or 
blight accompanying the presence of any one riding or driving 
a white horse, in a direction different from that taken by a 
funeral, I adopted this course of ahghting and saying a few 
kindly words. The action was observed, my motive fully ap- 
preciated, and most kindly taken. 

It was one of those scenes called canting the corpse. 
The custom was a very old one, and has long since died out 
of the country, but was still lingering in this remote district. 
I allude to more than twenty-five years ago. 

The custom was this — The funeral stopped on its way to 
the place of burial, at every cross-road, and the coffin was 
placed in the center of the road. The professed object of this 
was the holy association of ideas connected with a cross, but 
the apparent object seemed to be that it was in such places 
they were sure to meet the largest number of passengers. 
The coffin being placed on the ground, the priest or any act- 
ing for him, took a hat in his hand and stood beside it, and 
asked of all the friends of the deceased for their " ofi*erings," 
for the soul of the dead. These " offerings" are sums of money 
collected for the priest, as payment to him to engage him 
to " offer" such masses as shall relieve the soul of the de- 
parted in Purgatory. It was usual for the priest himself to 
collect this money, sometimes on a plate, sometimes in his 
hat. The coffin was placed on the cross-roads, and as each 
person gave his " offering," the priest called out the amount 
in a loud voice. The effect of this was exceedingly droll, for 
as one person gave his sixpence the priest pronounced his 
name and the amount, " Paddy Bryan, sixpence, Paddy Bryan 
sixpence," so continuing, like an auctioneer at a sale, till an- 
other " offering" was made, and then it was " James Riley, 
one shilhng, James Riley one shilling," so repeating till another 
offering was given, and then he cried " Billy O'Connor, one 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 65 

penny, Billy O'Connor only one penny !" He thus continued 
varying the tone of his voice so as to flatter the pride of all 
who gave largely, and so as to shame the faces of those who 
gave niggardly. The appearance of the whole scene remind- 
ed one of an auction, which in that country was called a 
cant, and this gave rise to the designation the custom received ; 
it was called canting the corpse. The manner and voice of 
the priest, whose object it was to collect the largest ofi'erings 
— ^the faces of the friends who v«^ere obliged to show their re- 
gard to the dead by the amount of these " offerings" — the an- 
gry looks of some whose moderate donations were put to 
shame, by the contemptuous tone of the priest as he named 
. them — the laughing faces of a laughter-loving people, at the 
way in w^hich so many were shamed unwillingly out of their 
money — all formed a scene of the broadest comedy. It was 
impossible not to be amused, even though it took place over a 
coffin, that contained the last relics of the dead. A gentle 
compassion for the poor people had been a more suitable feeling. 
I rode on my way. And the more I reflected on this scene, 
the more I felt that it was one of gross extortion, practiced on 
the superstitious simplicity of a superstitious and simple people 
— a people who, more than any other with which I am ac- 
quainted, are nervously and jealously sensitive of the opinions 
of their neighbors. The priest, by the changing tones of his 
voice, played upon this feeling, and the people were victimized. 
I felt this so strongly, that when addressing a large assembly 
of some hundred of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the 
evening, I narrated the scene and denounced the custom. I 
have ever rejoiced in knowing that the poor peasantry took 
encouragement from my words. They w^ere eagerly circulated 
and as eagerly welcomed through the w^hole neighborhood. 
From that moment this custom was discontinued ; in its stead 
a table was placed outside the door of a house where there 
was one dead, and all who entered or passed gave an " offer- 
ing" or otherwise, as they felt disposed. This was infinitely 
more decent. In that neighborhood there never was witnessed 
again such a scene as Canting the Corpse. 



56 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Wliile addressing the congregation on this occasion, I stated 
that such scenes could never occur in a Bible-reading land, for 
that they never could be submitted to by a Bible-reading peo- 
ple. There was no such place as Purgatory; it was never 
mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. There was no such way 
of rescuing the souls of the dead as money-offerings, there was 
nothing like it described in the Holy Scriptures. And I 
stated broadly that it was because the Holy Scriptures did not 
sanction such things, and because if the people read the Holy 
Scriptures they would not submit to such thipgs ; that the 
Eoman Catholic priests opposed the circulation of the Holy 
Scriptures ; that though they seemed to give a variety of other 
and different reasons, the real truth was — they were opposed 
to the Holy Scriptures, because the Holy Scriptures were op- 
posed to them. 

It w^as my custom to remain at the house the night of my 
cottage lecture, and on this account I learned, in the morn- 
ing that a number of Koman Catholics were waiting to speak 
with me. I found eighteen or twenty men collected in a 
small apartment, where several members of the family with 
myself met them. They had brought with them a spokes- 
man, a young and clever man, who had a great reputation in 
the neighborhood as a sort of controversial champion of -the 
Church of Rome. There was some desultory conversation on 
the canting of the corpse, and on the cottage lecture of the 
preceding evening, and I soon perceived that our conversation 
might now be usefully turned to the right of the people to 
read the Holy Scriptures for themselves — the subject more 
than all else controverted in the country at that period. The 
Protestant clergy pressed and exhorted the people to exercise 
their right to read and judge for themselves. The Roman 
Catholic priesthood denied the right of the laity to read them, 
and denounced from their altars all who did so. 

I turned from the young spokesman and addressed one of 
the party whose friends had emigrated to America, and from 
whom he was daily expecting letters and remittances, w^ith a 
view to his following them — " You are now expecting letters,' 



HOLY SCRIPTURES. 57 

I said, " letters giving account of tlie far-off land — the land be- 
yond the ocean — the land to which they have emigrated 
before you. These letters will inform you of all the difficul- 
ties you have to undergo, the dangers you have to avoid, the 
duties you have to perform. These letters, too, will tell you 
of the success and of the prosperity that may be hoped for in 
that distant land ; and w411, perhaps, communicate the means 
by which you will be enabled to reach that land in safety, and 
be again united with your friends who have gone before you. 
Now, let us suppose that these letters have arrived — that you 
have asked for them at thg post-office — ^that the post-master 
refuses to give them to you — that in consequence you assert 
your right to letters which are written to you, and intended to 
be read by you — that he refuses still, saying that it was far 
better not to give them to you, for that you were an ignorant 
and unlearned person — that you might mistake the meaning 
of the letters, and perhaps, might use the money they con- 
tained to your own destruction — that therefore he thought it 
best to keep the letters and their contents to himself, and that 
you must be content with just as much of them as he thought 
fit to communicate." I asked the man how, in such a case, he 
would be disposed to act. 

He seemed to me, by the expression of his- eye, to see the 
real drift of my question, and answered that he would make 
the post-master give him the letters — that they were written 
to him — that he had a right to them — that they were for his 
information, and that have them he would. 

" But," I said, " when he told you that you were ignorant 
and unlearned, and might mistake or misunderstand them, 
how would you answer him V 

He replied that he would try them at all events — that 
when he got the letters he would read them, and do his best 
to understand them, and get others to help him to understand 
them — but that the letters he would have, and would let no 
man keep them from him. 

" This," I then said, " is precisely the case with the Holy 
Scriptures : they are, as we all know, the Word of God ; they 



58 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

are written by His Holy Spirit for our instruction and inform- 
ation respecting the land of promise, the heavenly land to 
which we all are traveling. We are here ' strangers and pil- 
grims,' emigrants looking forward to another world, not in- 
deed beyond the ocean, but beyond the grave ; and the Holy 
Scriptures are like your expected letters, written to warn us 
of the temptations and sins which endanger the way — to en- 
courage us by the promises and hopes connected with faith 
and holiness — and to tell us of all the blessedness and holiness 
and happiness of heaven. Now my question is — How ought 
you to act when any man, undei; any pretense whatever, en- 
deavors to keep these Holy Scriptures from you, which 
were written for you, and to which you have as much 
right as you have to the light of the sun or the air of 
heaven ?" 

The young spokesman here stopped the other, and answered 
for him, saying, that the Holy Scriptures were a hard book, 
and very difficult to be understood — that they puzzled the 
greatest and most learned divines of all the churches — that 
they were in consequence misunderstood and perverted to 
great evil — that simple and unlearned men as they were, -be- 
ing farmers and j)easants and laboring men, could not under- 
stand them, and might interpret them wrongly — that the 
Holy Scriptures were intended for the church and not for the 
people, and therefore, they belonged to the clergy, who were 
learned and holy men, and not to the laity who were ignorant 
and unlearned. 

And how, I asked him, would you answer the children 
in school, who said the alphabet was, very hard to be under- 
stood, and the rules of arithmetic very hard to be com- 
prehended, and the catechism very hard to be remembered, 
and that they all were so hard that it was better to lay 
aside both alphabet and arithmetic and catechism ? I added, 
that I would tell them to read and study them more and 
more, and then to read and study them again and again, and 
that in due time they would find them no longer hard, but 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 59 

perfectly easy to be understood. Now, how, I asked, would 
you answer them ? 

He made no reply. Several present said, I had myself given 
the right answer, namely, to read again ; I therefore told them 
that if they found the Scriptures hard they had only to read 
them again and again, and in due time, by God's blessing, they 
would find them easy enough. 

" And may I ask," I spoke very gently, as if changing the 
subject, " in v/hat language does the priest celebrate the mass 
in this parish ?" 

He replied, " in Latin, of course. In the Church of Rome 
in every part of the world, the canon of the mass is said 
in Latin. In this parish there are some parts of the serv- 
ices of the church that are sometimes said in English, and 
sometimes he preaches in Irish, but he always says the canon 
of the mass in Latin. Indeed it is myself that assists him at 
the mass." 

He said this with some degree of self-importance, as if com- 
municating to me some information which I seemed to re- 
quire. It was apparent that he did not see my object in the 
question. 

"I suppose, then, I said, that you know Latin, and that you 
can understand the Latin of the canon of the mass." 

" ISTo," was his reply, " none of us in this parish understand 
Latin." 

" And yet you attend and assist at the saying the mass, you 
serve at the mass." 

" Yes, to be sure," was his answer. " It is I who always 
serve mass," that is, he acted in the services of the Church of 
Rome as a clerk does in Protestant churches. 

I saw that now I was in the best possible position for deal- 
ing with the objection he had urged against the Holy Scrip- 
tures being read by the people. He had not perceived the ob- 
ject of my questions as to the Latin language. 

I paused for a few moments with the view of drawing the 
more attention to my answer, and when all seemed waiting 
for me, I aske(l quiefly, whether I had rightly and clearly un- 



60 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

derstood the objection be bad before urged — tbat as tbe mass 
of tbe people were ignorant, and could not understand tbe 
Holy Scriptures, so tbey ougbt not to read tbem or listen to 
tbem — tbat tbe fact of tbeir ignorance, and tbeir not under- 
standing tbem, was adequate reason for tbeir neitber reading, 
nor listening to tbem. 

He assented to tbis as tbe arg^ument be bad urged, and on 
wbicb tbe Cburcb of Rome witbbeld tbe Holy Scriptures from 
tbe people. Tbey were too unlearned and ignorant to under- 
stand tbem. 

I bad my answer prepared. It was one I never knew to fail 
in its effects upon tbe masses of tbe people. And I tberefore 
delivered it slowly, tbat tbe persons present migbt clearly un- 
derstand it. 1 said — If tbe fact tbat tbe Holy Scriptures are 
difficult to be understood, tbat tbeir language is difficult 
for an ignorant people to understand — if tbat fact be a good 
and adequate reason for tbeir neitber reading tbem, nor 
bstening to tbem, tben tbat otber fact — tbat most certain 
fact, tbat tbe language of tbe mass celebrated every day in 
he cbapels is Latin — a language not only difficult but im- 
possible to be understood by an ignorant people, must be a 
good and adequate reason for the people neitber attending nor 
bearing mass. ^ 

If a tbunderbolt bad fallen in tbe midst of us it could not 
bave created a greater sensation in its way, tban tbis simple 
answer. Tbe wbole party was in commotion, some beard it 
with an expression of face tbat seemed searcbing for some way 
of escape. Some seemed to regard it as a piece of uncommon 
and perplexing ing^enuity. Tbe larger portion seemed pleased 
and even deligbted witb it, as if it were a blow tbat would 
baffle all attempts at a reply. 

I repeated it slowly, saying — " Your priests tell you tbat as 
you can not understand tbe Holy Scriptures, so you ougbt 
not to read tbem or bear tbem. If tbat mode of reasoning be 
good and valid in reference to tbe Holy Scriptures, it is equally 
good and valid in reference to tbe sacrifice of tbe mass. As 
you can nqt understand tbe language of tbe mass, being in 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 61 

Latin, so you ought not to attend it, or hear it. J added that 
I argued the other way, namely, that if they inight attend mass, 
aUhough they did not understand its language, so they might 
as reasonably read and hear the Holy Scriptures, although per- 
haps they might not understand them as fully as desirable. 

There was no mistaking the general effect of this argument 
on my hearers. They offered no reply, but consulted, appar- 
ently with a difference of opinion, to see whether they could 
not answer me. 

After some time, I asked, whether they had no answer to 
make to this mode of putting the question. One of them sug- 
gested to me, that surely the Holy Scriptures were very hard 
to be understood by poor and ignorant men. 

They certainly are very easy, I replied, to be understood by 
the most poor and most unlearned, in every thing that is ne- 
cessary for the salvation of the soul — in every thing that con- 
cerns you most to know ; and as certainly there are also some 
things too hard for even the learned ; and, yet not more hard 
to you than the language of the mass. The priest tells you 
that you must attend and hear mass, although you can not 
understand it. He ought also to tell you that you ought to 
read and hear the Holy Scriptures, even though you think 
them hard to be understood. 

They gave up the argument as hopeless ; even their spokes- 
man seemed puzzled and was silent. 

I then said, that the real reason for withholding the Holy 
Scriptures was widely different. They were told that it was 
because they were too hard — too difficult to be understood. I 
believed that the real reason is, that they are so easy — so plain 
to be understood — that the language of Holy Scripture, when 
speaking of certain practices in the Church of Rome, reproving 
and condemning them, is so clear and intelligible, that the 
people would no longer follow those practices if they read the 
Holy Scriptures — that this language is so plain and easy that 
a child may understand it, and that for this very cause the 
Church of Rome prohibits the reading of the Scriptures 

They seemed perplexed at this statement, some among them 



62 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

had never seen the Scriptures, and therefore knew not whether 
they were difficult or easy. They only knew that they were 
told they ought not to have them, simply because being un- 
learned and ignorant, they could not understand them. They 
had been told this so often that they believed it, and they 
were greatly surprised to hear me say that the true reason 
they were forbidden to read them, was that they were so 
clear, plain, and easy to be understood. They expressed their 
surprise in very plain words, and as I saw they were disposed 
on the whole to place confidence in me, I stated that if they 
would let me have a few moments uninterrupted, I would 
explain myself fully. 

Their consent was given warmly and readily. Every one 
seemed intent on hearing. 

I said I would do nothing but read a few passages of the 
Holy Scriptures. They could judge for themselves whether 
they were hard or easy. They seemed to me very easy to be 
understood, but they were very hard to be reconciled with the 
Church of Rome — very hard, indeed, to be explained accord- 
ing to the practices of the Church of Rome. 

I then read the following passages to illustrate the right of 
reading the Scriptures : , 

" And these words, which I command thee this day, shall 
be in thine heart : and thou shalt teach them diligently unto 
thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine 
house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou 
liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind 
them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets 
between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the 
posts of thy house, and on thy gates." — Deut. vi. 6-9. 

Thus they were to be taught even to the children. 

^' Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the 
sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 
and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded 
them, saying. At the end of every seven years in the solemnity 
of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all 
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 63 

which lie shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all 
Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and 
women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy 
gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear 
the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this 
law ; and that their children, which have not known ani/ thing^ 
may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye 
live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it." — 
Deut. xxxi. 9-13. 

This again desires them to be taught to the men, women, 
and children, even the very youngest, who had known nothing 
else. 

"Afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings 
and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of 
the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded 
which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, 
with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that 
were conversant among them." — Joshua viii. 34, 35. 

These words show that all, even the women and the little 
children, were to hear and learn the Word of God : 

"And all the people gathered themselves together as one 
man into the street that was before the water-gate ; and they 
spake unto Ezra the scribe, to bring the book of the law of 
Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra 
the priest brought the law before the congregation, both of 
men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, 
upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read 
therein before the street that was before the water-gate, from 
the morning until mid-day, before the men and women, and 
those that could understand : and the ears of all the people 
were attentive unto the book of the law." — Nehemiah viii. 
1-3. 

Here again we have all the people, even the women : 

*' And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all 
the men of Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with 
him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both 
small and i^reat : and he read in all their ears all the words of 



64 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the 
Lord. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant 
before the Lord, to \yalk after the Lord, and to keep his com- 
mandments and his testimonies and his statutes, with all their 
heart and all tJieir soul, to perform the words of this covenant 
that were written in this book : and all the people stood to 
the covenant." — 2 Kings xxiii. 2, 3. 

It is evident that all the people both small and great were 
here. 

" The brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by 
night unto Berea : who coming thither went into the syna- 
gogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in 
Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness 
of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those 
things were so. Therefore many of them believed ; also of 
honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a 
few."— Acts xvii. 10-12. 

The Bereans are here praised for searching the Scriptures, 
and it is clear that this was done by the v/omen as well as the 
men. 

" Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and 
hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned 
them ; and that from a child thou hast known the Holy 
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, 
through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given 
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re- 
proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness : that the 
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
good works." — 2 Tim. iii. 14-17. 

Now here it is evident that the Scriptures were intended by 
God for all, even for little children. And there is no readinof 
these passages without feeling that the people, men, women, 
and children, alike have a right to learn, read and hear the 
Holy Scriptures. The priesthood have no more right to de- 
prive them of this, than to deprive them of the light of the 
sun or the air of heaven ! And I appealed to themselves — 
whether these Scriptures are not plain and easy, and clear 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 65 

enough to be understood by them. They are hard and diffi- 
cult — very hard and difficult indeed, to be explained by the 
Church of Rome. But, I said, I would give illustration on 
another point — the use of Images and Pictures. 

" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any 
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the 
earth beneath, or that is in the water under th*e earth : Thou 
shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them." — Exo- 
dus XX. 4, 5. 

" Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw 
no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto 
you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt 
yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of 
any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of 
any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged 
fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that 
creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the 
waters beneath the earth." — ^Deut. iv. 15-18. 

" Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant 
of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make 
you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the 
Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. For the Lord thy God is 
a consuming fire, even a jealous God. When thou shalt beget 
children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained 
long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a 
graven image, or the hkeness of any thing, and shall do evil 
in the sight of the Lord thy God, to provoke him to anger ; 
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that 
ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye 
go over Jordan to possess it ; ye shall not prolong jour days 
upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed." — Deut. iv. 23-26. 

" Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, 
and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven ; for the heathen 
are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are 
vain : for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the 
hands of the workmen, with the ax. They deck it with sil- 
ver and with gold ; they fasten it with nails and with hammers 



66 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that it move not. They are upright as the palm-tree, but 
speak not : they must needs be borne, because they can not 
go. Be not afraid of them ; for they can not do evil, neither 
also is it in them to do good." — Jer. x. 2-5. 

These texts seem plain, and easy, and clear. They alto- 
gether forbid, as a heathenish custom, the practice of having 
images and pictures to bow before, or kneel before, or pray 
before ; and this is precisely the view which Protestants take 
of this practice. The Church of Rome has multitudes of 
these in their houses and in their churches. And she finds 
it difficult and hard, and impossible to explain these Scriptures, 
which are so plainly against the use of images and pictures, 
so as to reconcile them with her practices, and she is therefore 
afraid that her people may see that these Scriptures condemn 
her practice ; and so she tells them that they ought not -to 
read them, because that they are too hard to be understood, 
whereas the real reason evidently is that they are too easily 
understood for her. 

But I will give another instance. It relates to the marriage 
of the clergy, which is forbidden in the Church of Rome, as 
sacrilege. 

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a 
bishop, he desire th a good work. j\ bishop then must be 
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good 
behavior given to hospitality, apt to teach : Not given to 
wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not 
a brawler, not covetous ; One that ruleth well his own house, 
having his children in subjection with all gravity ; For if a 
man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take 
care of the church of God?" — 1 Tim. iii. 1. 

There can be no mistake as to this, for the wife and chil- 
dren of the bishop are mentioned. Again — 

" Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, 
not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre ; Holding 
the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these 
also first be proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, 
being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 67 

not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons 
be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their 
own houses well." — 1 Tim. iii. 8. 

The wives and children of the deacons are here mentioned, 
ag^ain : 

" For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set 
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in 
every city, as I had appointed thee : If any be blameless, the 
husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of 
riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the stew- 
ard of God."— Titus i. 5. 

Now here are texts of which no man can possibly say they 
are hard or difficult in themselves. They certainly are hard 
and difficult to explain in the Church of Eome, because she 
forbids the marriage of her clergy, denouncing it as a sacrilege, 
and declaring it to be wantonness. It is difficult for her 
therefore to reconcile these Scriptures with her doctrine and 
practice, but if is apparent to every one, that the texts are 
plain, and. clear enough in themselves, and it is because they 
are too plain and clear for her, that she gives them the bad 
name of being hard and difficult. She fears the laity reading them. 

But here is another illustration : it is on the subject of re- 
fusing the cup of wine to the laity. 

" As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and 
brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said. Take, eat ; this 
is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and 
gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; For this is my 
blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins." — Matt. xxvi. 26-^218. 

The cup was given by our Lord, and commanded to be given 
and taken by all alike, as w^ell as the bread. 

Again — " As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, 
and brake it, and gave to them, and said. Take, eat ; this is 
my body. And he took the cup, and w^hen he had given 
thanks, he gave it to them : and they all drank of it. And 
he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, 
which is shed for many." — Mark, xiv. 22-24. 



68^ EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Again — " He took bread, and gave tlianks, and brake it, and 
gave unto tliem, saying, This is my body which is given for 
you : this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup 
after supper, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood, 
which is shed for you." — Luke xxii. 19, 20. 

Again — " The Lord Jesus took bread : And when he had 
given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat ; this is my body, 
which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. 
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had 
supped, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood : 
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." — 1 
Cor. xi. 23-25. 

Here are Scriptures so plain that " he who runs may read." 
In every one of them the cup of wine is as prominent as the 
bread. And when the Roman Catholic priests say that these 
are difficult, it must be that they are difficult to reconcile with 
their system ; they can not mean that they are difficult in 
themselves, for every one can see that they are clear and easy 
to be understood ; and that the most simple-minded and un- 
learned may comprehend them. The suspicion may indeed 
be entertained, that they are felt to be somewhat too clear and 
easy to suit the Church of Rome ; which, in direct opposition 
to the Scriptures, refuses all communion in the cup. 

I T\dll give you another instance ; it shall be of the Latin 
prayers, of the sacrifices of the mass. They are always read, 
as already intimated, by the priests in Latin. 

"Even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or 
harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall 
it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the trumpet 
give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the bat- 
tle ? So likewise you, except ye utter by the tongue words 
easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken ? 
for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many 
kinds of voices in the world, and none of them are without 
signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the 
voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian ; and he 
that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me." — 1 Cor. xiv. Y-1 1. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 69 

" If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth ; but 
my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then ? I will 
pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding 
also : I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the un- 
derstanding also. Else, w^hen thou shalt bless with the spirit, 
how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say 
Amen at thy giving of thanks ? seeing he understandeth not what 
thou sayest. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other 
is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more 
than ye all. Yet in the church I had rather speak five words 
with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others 
also, than ten thousand w^ords in an unknown tongue." — 1 
Cor. xiv. 14-19. 

" If therefore the whole church be come together into one 
place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those 
that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye 
are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that 
belie veth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is 
judged of all ; And thus are the secrets of his heart made 
manifest ; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship 
God, and report that God is in you of a truth." — 1 Cor. xiv. 
23-25. 

You yourselves, I said, can say whether these Scriptures are 
hard and difficult to be understood ; they seem to me so plain 
and easy that a child might understand them. And when the 
priests tell you that they are too hard to be understood by you, 
it really looks as if the true reason was that they thought them 
too plain and easy. 

But we can go further. On the subject of prayers to saints 
and angels, the Holy Scriptures seem equally decisive. 

" As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down 
at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, say- 
ing. Stand up ; I myself also am a man." — Acts x. 25, 26. 

" When the people saw what Paul had done, they lift up 
their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are 
come down to us in the hkeness of men. And they called 
Barnabas, Jupiter ; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the 



70 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before 
their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and 
would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the 
apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, 
and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying. Sirs, 
why do ye these things ? We also are men of like passions 
with you, and preach unto you, that ye should turn from 
these vanities, unto the living Gocl, which made heaven and 
earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." — Acts xiv, 
11-15. 

" And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto 
me. See thou do it not : I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy 
brethren that have the testimony of Jesus ; worship God : 
for the testimony of Jesus is the sphit of prophesy." — ^Rev. 
xix. 10. 

"I John saw these thino-s, and heard them. And when I 
had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of 
the angel which showed me these things. Then said he unto 
me, See thou do it not : for I am thy fellow-servant, and of 
thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings 
of this book : worship God." — Rev. xxii. 8, 9. 

" Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary 
humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things 
which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 
and not holding the Head." — Col. ii. 18, 19. 

And are these hard and difficult ? Are they not easy and 
plain in themselves, as showing that neither saints nor angels 
are to be worshiped ; and that worship is to be given to God 
alone ? But, considering the practice of the Church of Rome, 
we can not be surprised that she forbids her members to read 
such Scriptures, not indeed as is pretended, lest you should 
find them "too hard and difiicult, but because she feels they are 
inconveniently plain and easy for her system. 

And now, once more, and I have done ; I shall read some 
passages on the subject of Confession, The Roman CathoHcs 
confess to the priests. The Protestants confess to God. Let 
us see what the Holy Scriptures say : 



HOLY SCRIPTUKE. Yl 

" And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, 
glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make Confession unto 
Him ; and tell me. now what thou hast done ; hide it not 
from me." — Joshua vii. 19. 

The Confession is to God, and not to the priest. 

" And Hezekiah spake comfortably unto all the Levites 
that taught the good knowledge of the Lord : and they did 
eat throughout the feast seven days, offering peace-offerings, 
and making Confession to the Lord God of their fathers." — 
2 Chron. xxx. 22. 

" Ezra the Priest stood up, and said unto them. Ye have 
transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the 
trespass of Israel. Now therefore make Confession unto the 
Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure." — Ezra x. 
10, 11. 

" I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have 
I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the 
Lord ; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah." — 
Psalm xxxii. 5. 

" I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my Confession, 
and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the 
covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that 
keep His commandments ; we have sinned and have commit- 
ted iniquity." — Dan. ix. 4, 5. 

And now, I asked, are not all these sufficiently plain and 
easy in themselves ? They describe Confession as being made 
to God, as it is among Protestants ; and not to the priests, as 
is the practice of Romanists. And surely if the priests assert, 
that these Scriptures are too hard and difficult to be under- 
stood ; and that, therefore, you ought not to read them ; it 
may well create the suspicion that they do not wish you to 
read them, lest you should find them too plain and easy. 

And now, I said in conclusion, I felt that I could appeal 
to themselves ; I had read to them many passages of Holy 
Scripture on several subjects, and I had observed their feel- 
ings as they heard them. It was impossible not to see, that 
they understood every one of them, and that they applied 



*I2 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

every one of them to the practices and doctrines of the Church 
of Rome, and that they felt these Holy Scriptures to be 
plainly and clearly against her ; I therefore could appeal to 
every one ,of them, whether these Scriptures are too hard 
and difficult to understand, or whether it is not that they 
are so easy and plain that the priests fear the reading of them, 
and the discovering through them the impositions practiced 
upon the people. 

During the whole time I was reading those several groups 
of texts, and applying them without comment to certain prac- 
tices of the Church of Rome — letting each group speak, as it 
were, for itself — the attention and interest of every one of the 
Roman Cathohc hearers was extreme. Their steady gaze — their 
listening attitude — their evident surprise — their mutual glance 
as they applied the several texts — their palpable, and grow- 
ing, and deepening conviction that the Holy Scriptures were 
opposed to the Church of Rome, was one of the most striking 
scenes ever wit^iessed of its kind. The sudden exclamation 
of surprise — the speaking glance — the inquiring looks, all told 
a powerful impression of some kind. I felt that this simple 
grouping of so many texts on each point, and letting them 
speak for themselves without comment on my part, gave in- 
tense satisfaction. There could be no mistaking the impres- 
sion. It seemed to them as if it was God in His word, and 
not I, a Protestant minister, who was appealing to them. And 
the work was done. It was a reahzing the fact, which an 
apostle mentions, they " received it not as the word of man, 
but as it is in truth, the Word of God." 

Some desultory conversation followed. It was universally 
admitted by them, that these Scriptures were plain, clear, and 
easy enough — that they were, without any doubt, contrary to 
what they had been taught by their clergy — that they could 
now see clearly enough the reason they were not allowed to 
read the Holy Scriptures — that they would for the future, 
whatsoever might be said to the contrary, read them for them- 
selves. Even the person who accompanied them, in order to 
vindicate the Church of Rome, seemed thoroughly silenced. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 73 

He did not say a word. And it was some time before he 
could take courage to offer an objection. 

When he did speak again, it was in a subdued and hum- 
bled tone. He seemed to have lost confidence, either from 
the feeling visible among his co-religionists, or from the diffi- 
culty of his position. " But," at last, he said, " the Protestants 
made the Scriptures every thing, as if all their religion was 
there, and not in tradition. The Roman Catholics on the 
other hand had many things of their religion in tradition — in 
the tradition of the church." He then went on to explain 
the theory of the Church of Rome. Our blessed Lord and 
Saviour was two or three years with His holy apostles — ^had 
told and taught them, during that long period, many things 
that are not written in the gospels, and these things, of which 
some were doctrines, and some were practices, have never been 
written in the Holy Scriptures — that indeed the Holy Scrip- 
tures were not large enough to contain them all ; that these 
doctrines and practices were taught by the Holy Apostles, by 
word of mouth, to the holy bishops and clergy that came 
after Him ; that they handed them down by word of mouth 
to those that succeeded them, and thus some doctrines and 
practices have been handed down in the church to the present 
day ; and these are the traditions of the church, the oral 
teaching of the church. Now, he continued, these traditions 
are to be held, as the Council of Trent says, in equal venera- 
tion with the Holy Scriptures. These traditions are in the 
Church of Rome, which is infallible, as being founded by St. 
Peter, infallibly preserved by her from loss or corruption or 
falsification, and all Christians are bound to believe and ob- 
serve them as much as the Holy Scriptures. When, therefore, 
he said, in conclusion, you refer to the Scriptures and appeal 
to them, we will refer to tradition and appeal to it. 

I asked him, when he concluded, to tell me any one doctrine 
or practice of the Church of Rome, which was derived from 
tradition — which was derived from tradition alone, and was 
not to be found in the Holy Scripture ? 

He replied at once — transubstantiation, the holy sacrifice 

4 



74 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

of the mass, purgatory, prayers for tlie dead, the worship of 
the blessed virgin — and there were many others. 

" Then you acknowledge," I asked, " that these doctrines 
are not contained in the written Word of God ?" And turn- 
ing to all present, I called them all to witness the admission, 
that these things were not in the Holy Scriptures, and were 
only traditions. 

It was immediately exclaimed by several that he had often 
before been endeavoring to prove them to them, by texts 
from the Scriptures ; and that for their part they would not 
believe any thing that could not be proved by the Word of 
God. 

He was somewhat disconcerted at this, but said that he 
could prove them by the Scriptures, but that the Church of 
Rome held them, not because they were in the Scriptures, but 
because they were in tradition — that the true rule of faith 
was, not Scripture alone, nor tradition alone, but both to- 
gether, — both Tradition and Scripture together. In some 
books, he said, it was described as the oral or unwritten word, 
together with the written word, so that the true rule of faith, 
in the church, was the written and the unwritten word to- 
gether. And by this means it is that the true doctrines are 
partly in the one, and partly in the other. And so transub- 
stantiation, and the mass, and purgatory, and the worship of 
the virgin are partly in the Scriptures, and partly in Tradition 
— ^the written and unwritten vv^ord. 

" I suppose, then," I asked, " that you hold with your 
Church, that both Tradition and Scripture — both the written 
and unwritten word, as you call it, are from the same God, 
and consequently must agree exactly, and can never contra- 
dict each other." 

" Certainly," he responded, emphatically. 

" Then of course," I said, " you hold, that if, in comparing 
the two, we find any thing contrary, the one to the other, we 
must reject one of the two ?" 

" Of course," was his reply. 

" If, then," I asked, " any of the doctrines or practices, 



HOLY SCIUPTUIIE. 75 

which the Church of Rome professes to derive from Tradition, 
or the unwritten word, should be found contrary to the Scrip- 
tures, as the written word, there would then be a contradic- 
tion, and which would you reject ?" 

There was much hesitation here in his manner. Our hear- 
ers observed it, and had evidently made up their minds as to 
the answer they would make, several of them exclaiming 
aloud, that they would hold to the Scriptures. I repeated 
the question, asking which, in case of a contradiction, he was 
to receive, and which reject ? 

His answer was, that there was no contradiction between 
the Church of Eome and the Scriptures — that all the doc- 
trines and practices could be proved in the Scriptures — and 
he then boldly and confidently challenged me to name one 
that w^as contrary to the Scriptures, and that he was prepared 
to meet me. 

I named — the use of the Latin language, an unknown lan- 
guage, in the service of the mass ; adding that it was clearly 
contrary to the commands of the Apostle in the very Scrip- 
tures already read. I then read again the passages I had be- 
fore cited from 1 CoR.'xiv. 

He was perfectly silent. The persons present looked sig- 
nificantly at each other. 

I then named — the depriving of the laity of the cup of wine 
at the administration of the Lord's Supper. And I read, as 
before, the several accounts of the institution in the gospels. 

He was still perfectly silent. The effect of this silence was 
very great, but very natural upon all present. 

The conversation then became general ; it was taken up by 
the persons present, speaking one to the other, on various 
points of the subject. I did not interfere, as I perceived every 
thing was tending in the right direction — all tending to shake 
the confidence of the Roman Catholics present in their church, 
and to transfer it to the Holy Scriptures. 

After some time, I addressed them generally, and said that 
the Church of Rome held practically two rules of faith. One 
was Tradition, or the unwritten word, the other was the Holy 



76 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Scripture, or the written word. It was perfectly clear to the 
common sense of every one, that these two, supposed as they 
are, to come from the same God, can not possibly contradict 
each other, but must necessarily agree, in every way. It is 
always, therefore, in our power to try every tradition, profess- 
ing to be divine, by comparing it with Holy Scripture ; and 
if it be found contrary to the Holy Scriptures, it is contrary 
to the written word of God ; contrary to an admitted portion 
of the rule of faith, and therefore could not have come from 
God. It is not a true tradition, it is not a divine tradition. 
It must necessarily be only a pretended tradition. It is be- 
lieved in the Roman Church, as much as in the Protestant 
Church, that the Holy Scriptures are the written word of 
God. If, therefore, we find any thing taught under the name 
of a tradition, we have only to compare it with the Holy 
Scripture, the undoubted Word of God, and accept it, if it 
agrees with the Scriptures, and reject it if it disagrees. This 
is our best and simplest course, instead of holding disputa- 
tions about the importance, or the truth of traditionary 
things, or perplexing ourselves with subtleties about rules of 
faith. • 

He then said that that was private judgment — interpreting 
the Scriptures according to our private judgment, and not 
according to the interpretation of the Church ; now the 
blessed St. Peter, the founder of the Church of Eome, and 
the Rock on which the Lord built His church, has said that 
we are not to put our private interpretations on the Scriptures, 
for that they are too hard for us to understand. 

I asked him to read the place where the Apostle said that 
there was to be no private interpretation of the Scriptures. 

He opened the well-known passage in 2 Peter, i. 19, and 
read, " We have also a more sure word of prophecy." 

I interrupted him, with the request to mark the word 
" prophecy," saying, the Apostle's words were, " We have 
also a more sure word of prophecy." That particular word 
was important. 

He then read on, " We have also a more sure word of 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 77 

prophecy ; wliereunto ye do well tliat ye take lieed, as unto 
a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and 
the day star arise in your hearts ; knowing this first, that no 
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For 
the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but 
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost." There he added, it is said that no Scripture is to be 
privately interpreted. 

No, I replied, he does not say that no Scriioture^ but that 
no Prophecy in the Scripture is of any private interpretation, 
meaning thereby that the prophets were inspired by the Holy 
Ghost to deliver certain prophecies — that these prophecies 
were not of their own impulse, or their own interpretation — 
that they should be interpreted as the Holy Ghost, who in- 
spired them, designed. This all refers to the prophecies, and 
the application or interpretation of the prophecies; and has 
no reference to the Scriptures in general — has no reference to 
the commandments of God, or the invitations of the Gospel, or 
the loving words of Jesus Christ. Every man must read the 
Holy Scriptures for himself — must remember that they are the 
words of God — that 'God who will judge him in the great 
day ; and who will, therefore, judge him for any willful, selfish, 
perverse understanding of his word — must read them in faith 
and prayer, humbly, reverently, prayerfully looking for the 
teaching of the Holy Ghost who inspired them. Every man 
is bound to do it, like the Bereans : " These were more noble 
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word 
with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, 
whether those things were so." — Acts xvii. 11. It was the 
Apostle Paul who had preached to them — an inspired Apostle, 
one who spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, and yet 
even his words were not taken for granted without examina- 
tion. The Bereans heard him, hstened to him, remembered 
him, and then searched the Scriptures to ascertain whether his 
preaching agreed with the Scriptures. Now this is all we ask 
for any man, and this is what we understand by the right to 
search the Scriptures, and the right of private judgment. It 



78 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

is that reverently, and humbly, and prayerfully, we may now 
do what the Bereans did before us, and were divinely praised 
for doing — that, if they might compare the words of an Apostle 
with the Holy Scriptures, so every man, Protestant and Roman 
Cathohc, may now compare the preaching of their clergy with 
the Holy Scriptures, and receive or reject them according as 
they find them agreeing or disagreeing with the same. 

But, he rejoined, men, who are unlearned and ignorant, are 
not fit to interpret the Holy Scriptures. They are too hard to 
be understood, and if they are allowed to interpret them 
according to their own judgment, they will draw from them 
every sort of opinion ; there will be as many opinions as there 
are persons. 

I reminded him that this objection had been discussed 
l^efore — that the language of an English Bible was not so hard 
as the Latin of the Mass — that when his children did not learn 
their appointed tasks, and excused themselves by sajing their 
tasks were too hard for them, he would, probably tell them to 
read them over again and again, and yet again, and that after 
reading often they would find them no longer hard but easy. 
Many a time, I said, when I was young, and complained that 
my lessons were too hard, I was desired, not indeed, to throw 
aside my books, but to read more and more, and again and 
again, as the means of getting over the difficulty. And in 
precisely the same way, I added, if you find the Holy Scriptures 
hard to be understood, read them again and again, and yet 
again in a prayerful, humble, reverential, believing spirit, and 
in God's own time you will most certainly find them sufficiently 
easy in every thing that is necessary for the salvation of your 
soul. 

Our httle meeting soon after this dispersed, and I felt per- 
fectly easy as to the general eftect of the conversation. In the 
course of a few following months, I had many private conver- 
sations with the young man, who had acted as the advocate 
of Rome on this occasion. We went through the whole range 
of the controversy, not in a spirit of controversy, but of 
inquiry, for his mind was passing through a great change. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. ^79 

Before the year had expired he abandoned the Church of 
Rome. 

He was much influenced by the language in St. Mark viii. 
1-13. It strongly dwelt upon his mind, that our Lord and 
his disciples evidently did not keep or observe these traditions 
— ^that he defended his disciples in rejecting them — that he 
declared that these traditions had the effect of setting aside 
the AVord of God — and, finally, that the Jews rejected the 
Holy Scriptures, that they might keep their own traditions. 
In some of our after-conversations he showed that he regarded 
all this as an illustration of the very same system in the 
Church of Rome, for that the Jewish priests urged their tradi- 
tions in precisely the sam.e way, and on the same principles as 
the Roman Priests. And more than all else, he seemed influ- 
enced by his own experience of the Scriptures. They seemed 
to stream in upon his mind in rays of beautiful light, as he 
expi'essed it, like the rays of the sun streaming in through the 
crimson, and green, and purple, and gold-colored glass of an 
old church window. They were not only light, but beautiful 
light that conduced to meditation and prayer. And he did 
meditate and pray, and suffered much, and in the end escaped 
his persecutors by emigrating to America. 

Note. — The folio wing is the rule of the Index, respecting the Holy 
Scripture, constituting the law of the Church of Rome respecting them. 

" Since it is manifest by experience, that if Holy Bibles in the vulgar 
tongue be permitted every where without discrimination, there will 
arise more evil than good, owing to the rashness of men ; let the deci- 
sion of the Bishop or Inquisitor be abided by in the matter, so that with 
the advice of the Confessor or Parish Priest, they may grant the read- 
ing of Catholic editions of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, to those whom 
they shall have ascertained to be likely to derive no harm, but ratlier 
an increase of faith and piety from such reading, which permission thej/ 
shall have in writing. 

'^ If any one &hal\ presicme to read or possess them without such per- 
mission, he can not receive the absolution of his sins; unless he first gives 
up the Bible to the Ordinary. 

" Booksellers, also, who shall sell Bibles in the vulgar tongue to per- 
sons who have not this permission, or who shall give them in any other 
way, shall lose the price of the hooks — to be appropriated by the Bishop 



80 EVENINGS WITH' THE ROMANISTS. 

to charitable purposes ; and shall he subject to oilier penalties at the loill 
of the Bishop, according to the nature of the offense. 

^^ The Regular Clergij [that is, the Clergy of the Monastic Orders, 
Monks and Nuns alike, all being designated as * regulars'] can not read 
them or purchase them, unless with the permission of their Prelates." 

Such is the letter of the Law of the Church of Rome respecting the 
Holy Scriptures, drawn up by those appointed by the Council of Trent. 
According to its provisions, we see — ^First, No one can read or purchase 
the Scriptures, without the written permission of his Bishop. Second, 
No Bookseller can sell or dispose of them to other persons, without 
being liable to penalties, at the pleasure of the Bishop. Third, Even 
the Monks and Nuns are prohibited from reading the Scriptures, unless 
with special permission. 

This law is always in force. And although it speaks of Catholic edi- 
tions, there is only one such to be found in Italy — that by Martini, 
which is in twenty-three volumes! These, however, could be bound in 
four or six substantial volumes, suf&ciently cumbrous and inconvenient. 

The price at which it is sold is absolutely prohibitive. I could not 
procure one at Rome, in 1845, for less than 105 francs, that is, pre- 
cisely /om?' guineas ! The prohibitive nature of this price, may be seen 
from the fact, that four guineas are regarded as high wages by the 
year, for a servant-maid at Rome ; so that she would have to give a 
whole year's wages for a copy of the Scriptures ! And a franc a day 
is the ordinary pay, i. e., two pauls, for the laboring man. Owing to 
the number of holydays and Saints' days on which he must not work, 
he has, on an average, not more than four days, i. e., four francs a week 
— and thus he would have to give six months' earnings to purchase a 
copy of the Scriptures I 

And yet this is the only one they are permitted to read, even when 
they can have in writing the permission of the Bishop. They must 
first have the recommendation of the Priest. They must then have 
the TVTitten permission of the Bishop. They must then give Pour 
Guineas for the Volume I Is it possible to prohibit it more eflfectuaUy ? 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 

A Young Schoolmaster — The supposed want of Unity in the Protestant Churches — 
Wherein True Unity consists — Many Local Ch arches and one Church of Christ 
— Division is often a Sign of Life, and Unity of Death — Divisions in the Church 
of Rome — Similar to those among Protestants — Matters of Faith and Discipline 
— ^The same Objection urged by Heathens against Christianity — Great Diversities 
in the Church of Eome — Various Modes of answering the Objection as to want 
of Unity. 

Within a few miles of my parish v/as a young man, who 
kept a school and found in that way a very respectable liveli- 
hood. His character stood very high as a moral, religious, 
pious man, very sincerely attached to the Church of Rome, 
and very observant of all her ordinances. He was, on that 
account, patronized by all the priests of his church in the 
neighborhood, as a fitting instructor for the children of the 
, more respectable and wealthy of their congregations, and in 
consequence of this he was eagerly sought by many, who in- 
duced him, after his school hours were over, to visit their 
families, and impart private instruction to their children. He 
was thus engaged every evening among the families in the 
surrounding parishes. 

A private communication was one day made to me, to the 
effect, that this young man's mind had lately become very 
much impressed with religion — that there was an unusual 
and intense earnestness about him — that he had undoubtedly 
been reading the Holy Scriptures — that he seemed drawn to- 
ward certain religious Protestants with an apparent desire for 

rehgious information — that he was known to spend hours at 

4* 



82 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

niglit upon Ms knees in prayer — that something seemed to 
press upon his mind, for that his lively spirit was gone and he 
was thoughtfid and moody ; and in fine it was suggested to me, 
tliat it would be well to take an opportunity of seeing him^ 
and drawinof out his mind on relip'ion. This communication 
was made to me, with a remark to the effect that the young 
man had spoken of me with the expression of a wish to see 
me . and that my seeking him would be well-received by 
him. 

I was considering how this might best be done two days 
afterward, when, late one summer evening, as I was sauntering 
along the paths in the meadows, I observed him at a little 
distance. He saw me and entered the house of a respectable 
Protestant farmer, pausing at the entrance, and looking toward 
me, as if to let me clearly see where I could find him. At 
least I so interpreted his manner, and as I well knew this farm- 
er, who was a constant attendant at my church, and was at 
the same time a Methodist of the old kind, I entered the 
house. 

The farmer was one of those simple, frank, religious men 
who do every thing in an open way. He told me, in the 
presence of the young man, that he had had, some days be- 
fore, some conversation with him about the salvation of his 
soul — about the Scriptures — and about Popery and Antichrist 
— that he believed the Lord was doing a work in his heart — 
and that he thought the young man, like another in the Gos- 
pel, was not far from the kingdom of God. He then proposed 
that we should all kneel down together, and that I should of- 
fer a prayer to the Lord for his Holy Spirit, and claim his 
precious promise, that where two or three were assembled in 
his name, there he would be in the midst. I felt that the 
old Methodist counseled wisely. We prayed together. When 
we arose from our knees, the good farmer said he would with- 
draw, and he left me^with the young man alone. 

He was bathed in tears : it was some time before he could 
arouse himself sufficiently to converse calmly. As might be 
expected, the conversation was in no degree controversial ; it 



THS UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 83 

ran simply on the convictions of sin, wliicli seemed to liave 
stiicken to the innermost depths of his soul ; and on the 
doubts and difficulties he felt as to the grounds of hope of 
forgiveness. He seemed to feel keenly ; he was perfectly 
open, and thoroughly in earnest. He stated that his views as 
to sin, and his o^Yn natural and habitual sinfulness, had lately 
been greatly changed and deepened ; and that as to the 
means of counteracting this sinful tendency of his nature, he 
found nothing satisfactory in all he had learned from his 
church ; and as to the mode of securing the forgiveness of his 
God ; he believed that all his life long he had been altogether 
astray. His spirit seemed thoroughly crushed and broken; 
he was looking for help and found none. Our conversation 
was intensely interesting, but it was in no degree controversial, 
so for as the Protestant and Romish Churches were concerned. 
They were never named or alluded to by me, although, as a 
matter of course, I was necessitated to set forth the great 
truths of the Holy Scriptures, as concerning the only true 
means of acceptance with God ; and to dwell on the undying- 
consolations of the Gospel, and the fullness and freeness of the 
offers of Christ. His name at such moments is a tower of 
strength — a Father of mercies — and a God of all consolation. 
It will readily be believed that the interview was similar to 
that which is familiar to every true-hearted and earnest and 
faithful minister of Christ's Church when dealing with newly 
awakened and strongly-touched sinners. It was a probing 
the wounds of sin and then binding them up. It was very 
much of the same character as many other interviews I have 
had from time to time with such persons, brought up amid 
the advantages and privileges of a Protestant land — amid 
the " green pastures and still waters" of a scriptural Church ; 
but vvhose hearts had long remained untouched and unimpress- 
ed from above, and were at last awakened to a sense of eter- 
nal realities, in reference to which their whole lives previously 
had been nothing but a dream. 

Before w^e separated he told me in reply to my inquiries, 
that he attended a rneeting of the Bible Society at the neigh- 



84 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

boring town some months before — that a Roman Catbolic 
priest bad openly on the platform opposed the proceedings — 
that a controversy arose among tbe speakers as to the right of 
the people to read the Holy Scriptm^es for themselves — that 
he left the meeting with a very strong desire to know more of 
the nature of this volume, respecting which the dissension 
arose. He had never before read the Holy Scriptures ; he 
now procured a copy, and he stated that it was in reading it 
his opinions had been modified, and his sense of sinfulness 
quickened. 

We parted for that night, but it was with an arrangement 
to meet soon again in the same house. 

We often met, and we were interested and profited. Gradu- 
ally error after error was abandoned. And finally, after many 
months, he forsook the Church of Rome, becoming an earnest, 
zealous, meek, and faithful Christian. He soon afterward leffc 
that part of the country, and after a time emigrated to 
America. 

He often spoke to me of the supposed unity of the Church 
of Rome, and of the difficulty he had felt respecting the Prot- 
estant Churches on account of their many divisions — on ac- 
count of their want of that unity which was one of the notes 
or marks of the true church. He was still a member of the 
Church of Rome, when he first pressed the argument upon 
me ; and he argued it with all his power, for he struggled 
step by step before he finally abandoned her. He reminded 
me, that in the Nicene Creed we are said to believe in " One 
holy, catholic and apostolic church," and thus we are said to 
believe the true church to be One, not many— the true and 
spotless Bride or Spouse of Jesus Christ to be One, not many 
— that as there was but " One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, 
one God and Father of all," so there was but one church — 
that as the members of the human frame may be many, yet 
must be in harmony with each other, so the various branches 
or members of the church, however many, must be in perfect 
harmony together — that the language of Holy Scripture 
seemed to imply this ; constantly exhorting Christians " to 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 85 

think the same thing, to mind the same thing," and " to be of 
one mind" — that our Lord Jesus Christ himself prayed five 
times in a single prayer, that his people " might be one." — 
And that this unity seemed an essential of the Church of 
Christ. He seemed to think that there was at least an appear- 
ance of this in the Church of Rome, while there were endless 
divisions — innumerable sects — in the Protestant Chmxhes. 

This argument he illustrated on different occasions, by dif- 
ferent scriptures, as of their being but one fold and one shep- 
herd — as to brethren being at unity among themselves — as to 
a house divided against itself being sure to fall, etc., etc. 

In reply to his difficulties on these points, urged as they 
were truly and sincerely, and in no partisan spirit, I endeav- 
ored to impress on him two or three principles that seemed to 
me greatly to elucidate this matter. 

In the first place, I tried to impress him with the fact that 
when our Lord spoke of the one fold and the one shepherd, 
his words contained an allusion to two parties — to the Jews 
and to the Gentiles. 

And his intention was to convey the idea, that there were 
not to be two distinct churches for these two — that there was 
not to be one Church, one Saviour, and one mode of sal- 
vation for the Jews, and another Church, another Saviour, and 
another mode of salvation for the Gentiles, but that there was 
to be but one and the same for both — that the Apostle Paul 
carries on the same truth, namely, that as he states in Eph. ii. 14 
-16. "Christ is our peace, who hath made both one, and 
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; 
having abolished in his flesh, the enmity, even the law of com- 
mandments contained in ordinances to make in himself of 
twain one new man, so making peace ; and that he might rec- 
oncile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain 
the enmity thereby." There were thus two bodies to be 
united into one church. Jews and Gentiles were not to 
be two but one church. And this I said was to be the true 
meaning of our professing a belief "in One Church." 

He said frankly that he had never seen it in that light, and 



86 EVENINGS ^YITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that it was so far satisfactory, as it explains the reason for its 
constituting the article of a creed. In fact, he added, in that 
sense it was an article of faith, but in the common view of it, 
he never could understand its being inserted in the creed. 

In the second place, I endeavored to convince him, that 
there might be a variety of separate, particular, national, or 
local churches, which yet might constitute one whole or uni- 
versal church. I illustrated this by referring him to his Tes- 
tament, where he could read of the Church of Rome, the 
Church of Corinth, the Church of Galatia, the Church of Ephe- 
sus, the Church of Phillippi, the Church of Thessalonica, the 
seven Churches of Asia, and especially the Church of Jerusa- 
lem. I said, that all these churches seemed distinct, and sep- 
arate, and perfect churches — that at least the Church of Rome 
was not made more of in such language than the Church of 
Corinth, or any other of the churches named — that they all 
seemed on an equality as particular or local churches, that of 
Jerusalem being the Mother of all. And I argued that the 
only difficulty — ^if indeed it could be called a difficulty at all 
— was to reconcile this diversity with unity, in other w^ords, to 
reconcile this number of churches v,dth the Unity of the 
Church of Christ ; but this difficulty is not one of our creat- 
ing, it is one on the face of Holy Scripture, and for that cause 
we are not disposed to be much affected by it. 

He saw this, and said, it certainly, if a difficulty at all, was 
a difficulty for which the Protestant principle or Potestant 
Reformation were not responsible, but he supposed that as the 
many branches of a tree constitute the one tree, and the many 
members of the body constitute the one body, so the harmony 
or union of these several particular or local churches may con- 
stitute them into the one Church of Christ. - He said he could 
well understand this, and it was the way in which he had ar- 
gued the question in his OAvn mind ; many persons forming 
one family, many regiments forming one army, and many 
nationalities constituting one people. He could therefore well 
understand this ; but in the Church of Christ there must be a 
harmony of feeling and unity of mind. And this was, as it 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 87 

seemed to Lim, the real objection to the divisions in the Pro- 
testant Churches. 

This induced me to lay before him a further principle, as it 
was apparent my words were not lost upon him. 

Let it be always remembered, I said, that union is not a 
necessary sign of spiritual life, as disunion is not a necessary 
evidence of spiritual death. If we enter a church or chapel, 
and observe the congregation, we are sure to find that how- 
ever their hearts may be united, yet their minds, habits ot* 
thought, and reflection create certain diversities and shades 
of opinion. There may be union on all that is great and im- 
portant, though there are diversities on matters of lesser 
moment. Their very diversities of judgment are a sign of 
mental activity and of real life. They are not dead. If then 
we enter the church-yard, and sit beneath the shady cypress 
and the dark yew, and tread lightly the graves of the de- 
parted, there is found no disunion and no diversity there. 
There is no collision of mind or of feeling. All is peaceful, 
quiet, calm. This very unity is an evidence of the absence of 
all real life. They are truly dead, and all the life that is 
there, is that of the loathsome worm of the grave. And so in 
spiritual things. There is a union which is a sign of spiritual 
death, for it argues the absence of all intelligent activity and 
mental life. And there is a division, which is an evidence of 
spiritual life, for it proves the existence of mental thought and 
active intelligence. Among the mummies of Egypt there are 
no religious differences, for all are dead. In the catacombs of 
Eome there is the most j)erfect union, for all are lifeless. 
Even among the children of the world, thoughtless, reckless 
as they are, there are no religious disputes, for all are spirit- 
ually dead. There are no varieties of opinion among a gal- 
lery of marble statues, for a perfect unbroken unity is evidence 
of death and not of hfe. The only true unity which is worth 
having, and which is quite consistent with diversity of senti- 
ment, is the union of holy brotherhood — the union of the 
children of Christ — the union of Christian heart with Chris- 
tian heart, and the union of both in Jesus Christ, where, 



88 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

knowing that a perfect unity of opinion is no more possible, 
than a perfect similarity of face, and knowing that there may 
be an agreement on great things, agreeing to bear and forbear, 
with differences on little things, the hearts of Christians may 
be united in brotherly love and sympathy, each with the 
other, and all seek and find the bond of union in Him, who is 
" the corner-stone in whom all the building, filjy framed to- 
gether, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord : in whom 
ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through 
the Spirit."— Eph. ii. 20-22. 

And this is the union of the Protestant Churches, or at 
least this ought to be their union. In the Church of Rome 
herself, we find an illustration, for she has within her bosom 
Jesuits, and Jansenists, and Dominicans, and Franciscans, and 
Augustinians, and Benedictines, and Carmelites, and innumer- 
able other orders or sects, all differing in outward manner, all 
differing in their rules of life, all differing in their opinions on 
some particulars, especially having all different practices — 
superstitious practices, as I think — prevalent among them, and 
yet they all have this bond of union in the Pope. Whatever 
be their differences, and sometimes they hate, and villify, and 
intrigue against one another, acting with the most hateful 
jealousy and malignant rivalry ; yet they do all find a bond 
of union in the Pope. It is thus, too, that the several Prot- 
estant Churches, with their diversities of forms and sentiments, 
too often also acting as enemies or rivals to each other, yet 
find their bond of union in Jesus Christ. 

He seemed to like this idea. His mind was in that state 
of first love for Christ that he was ready to renounce every 
church, indeed the whole world, for Christ : and he seemed to 
feel that there could be union with Christ, even when there 
was union nowhere else. " Surely," said he, warmly, " we 
two, though of different churches, are united in Jesus ?" I 
responded as warmly. 

And this, I contended, is the scriptural view of this matter. 
The Scriptures speak of a vast variety and number of churches. 
They speak of the assemblies of Christians in private houses 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 89 

as churclies ; tliej speak of the meetings of believers in isol- 
ated towns as churches ; they speak of the aggregate of such 
assemblies or meetings in any extended province as churches, 
and the compound or aggregate of these is the Church of 
Christ. The multitude of individual Christians in any place, 
taken together, constitute the church of that place, and the 
aggregate of all these churches constitute the Church of 
Christ. The name of the locality thus given to the church, 
or the name of some distinctive peculiarity given to a church, 
no more affects the reality of its Christianity than does the 
name of the country or the color of the skin affect the reality 
of the Christian standing of a man. If a man be a true be- 
liever and follower of Jesus Christ in the Church of England — 
if a man be a true believer and faithful follower of Jesus 
Christ in the non-conforming churches — ^if a man be a true 
and faithful follower of Jesus Christ even in the Church of 
Eome, that man, as he is not a Christian indeed and alto- 
gether merely from belonging to these in name, so neither is 
he excluded fi'om Christianity merely because he assumes the 
name of these churches. The great rule of Scripture respect- 
ing nations is the same respecting churches — "God is no 
respecter of persons, but in every nation [church], he that 
feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him." 
Some churches, as the Protestant, give a large amount of 
light and opportunity to their members ; other churches, as 
Rome, give comparatively no light, and no opportunities to 
their members. But still, wherever there is light, and knowl- 
edge, and love, and faith in Jesus Christ, there then is Christ- 
ianity, and there is a church, and there w^ill be all the unity 
of Christian brotherhood and Christian love. 

He quite felt with me in all this, remarking with a gentle 
smile that the house in which we then were, was the house of 
a Methodist — a Calvanistic Methodist, a true-hearted and be- 
lieving man. And yet he who vv^as a Roman Cathohc found 
a closer union with that man, Calvinist and Methodist as he 
was, and with myself, a clergyman of the Protestant Church 
of England, than with any other two persons he had ever 



90 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

knovni. He said witli great ingenuousness, that lie knew and 
liked, and respected several of the priests of his own church, 
and had many a long conversation with them on rehgious 
subjects, sometimes in private, and sometimes when many of 
them were together, but still he had never felt the same union 
— the same attraction — the same drawing of his heart — the 
same drawing out of his inner feehngs, as he felt toward either 
of us. He could thus understand the real Christians — the 
real lovers of Jesus Christ in all the sects, overlooking in oth- 
ers, and forgetting in themselves, the petty differences which 
separated them, and seeing in each other only a love for their 
common Saviour, feel themselves more truly united by that 
bond, than by any thing of peculiar name or peculiar form. 

The tone and manner of this interesting young person as 
he spoke, was far more expressive than his words themselves. 
There was something so true, so earnest, so ingenuous in his 
manner, his heart seemed so full, and his eyes at times over- 
flowing v>dth the large tear, that gave a wonderful life and 
reality to all he said, and coming as it did from one, who was 
still a member of the Church of Rome, and one who, so far as 
he then imagined, was never to part from her, his words had, 
for me, a very especial interest. I felt he could not be long- 
retained where he then was. 

We had some conversation as to certain points that to his 
pecuhar phase of mind and feeling were of more than usual 
interest, and after a time I reverted to the subject of Unity 
again. 

He said, in reply to a few words from mo respecting the 
diversities of the religious or conventual orders, that it was 
not fair to say, as some of his own Church often said, that such 
diversities of orders did not imply a diversity of doctrine or 
practice. He was fully aware that the jDredestinarian contro- 
versy, existing between the Calvinistic and Wesleyan Metho- 
dists, was identical with the same controversy between the 
Jansenists and Jesuits, not indeed as essential to these tvro 
orders, but the Jansenists were Calvinists, and the Jesuits 
were Arminians, and thus the very same controversy raged 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 91 

between them, which now divides the Protestant Churches — 
the chief difference being that the Pope interfered, and decnn- 
ing to say which was right or which was wrong, decided on 
authoritatively suppressing and silencing the controversy, for- 
bidding, under the heaviest penalties of the church, any fur- 
ther discussion of the subject. He added with a smile, that 
this was a mode of settling a controversy hardly admissible 
among Protestants. 

To this I could not but assent. I added, however, that 
there was scarcely a subject of controversy among Protestants, 
that was not also a subject of controversy among Eomanists. 
It is true that they are always talking of their unity ; — as 
they claim to possessing the most perfect unity, so by con- 
stantly and repeatedly reiterating the assertion that they have 
miity in their church, they succeed in making some believe 
them. The incessant and persevering assertion of many per- 
sons reiterating any one statement, is certain to secure a belief 
among many. But after all, there is not one subject of con- 
troversy among Protestants that does not also, to a certain 
extent, exist among Eomanists. That great question already 
referred to, the question of predestination, is an instance of 
this. It is equally true respecting others. 

He asked me to what I alluded. 

I said that one of the most disturbing subjects of strife ever 
known in England, was that which related to the robes or the 
dress of the clergy — whether they should robe in white sur- 
plices, or black gowns. The very same controversy existed 
in the Church of Rome, in the various branches of the Mendi- 
cant Orders. They seem to rend the whole church to pieces 
about the length of their hoods, and the color of their robes. 
The wisdom of the Church of Rome was, that she left them 
all to wear what they pleased, provided only they submitted 
to the See of Rome. And after all, what was the difference 
between many of our sects and the Churdi of England ? It 
was merely that they did not wish to be under the control and 
authority of the bishop. They declared themselves independ- 
ent of him. And the very same system exists at this moment 



M 



92 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

in tlie Cliurcli of Rome, for tlie various religious or conventual 
orders have very generally obtained the privilege of being to- 
tally exempt from the authority and jurisdiction of the local 
bishop. It is one of the privileges of the Order of the Jesuits, 
that its members are independent of the local bishop. This 
principle is admitted into the Church of Rome. 

He quickly took me up here, and said that I brought to 
mind that he had often heard that the Jesuit College at 
Clongowes was exempt from the authority of the bishop, 
although the College of Maynooth was subject to him. 

I said that it was an illustration of my position. But, I 
added, we can go much further, for whereas many of the di- 
versities among Protestants are mere diversities of form in the 
services of their different churches, so the very same diversity 
exists in the Church of Rome. In all the chapels of the Con- 
ventual Orders, there is a most marked diversity of practice. 
Indeed each Order may be known by its peculiar forms — pe- 
culiar prayers — peculiar rosaries — peculiar festivals — ^peculiar 
holydays — peculiar religious duties. They all differ as wide- 
ly one from another, as do the services or forms of any of our 
Protestant Churches. The Church of Rome shows her pro- 
found and practical wisdom in licensing each and all. It 
leaves her people to choose such things for themselves, pro- 
vided only, they implicitly submit to the authority of the Pa- 
pal See. I think she is perfectly right in doing so, and only 
wish she may have many imitators ; but what I complain of 
is, that while such diversities exist in her own body, she 
charges the Protestant Churches with a want of unity on ac- 
count of the existence of diversities which also exist within her 
own bosom. 

He said that all this he feared was too true. He knew per- 
sonally of subjects of endless dispute among such of his church 
as were earnest and zealous — quite as many as among Protest- 
ants ; but, he added, that it was generally agreed among Ro- 
man Catholics that their differences were small, and related 
only to small things — that they concerned only 7natters of 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 93 

discipline^ and were never known in Articles of Faith, And 
be asked me how I would answer that ? 

I reminded him that that was not universally true. I felt 
disposed to deal very gently with every argument that came 
from himself; but he frequently put forward the arguments 
of others, in order to learn bow to deal with them — at least it 
seemed so to me. I was not disposed to spare such arguments, 
and therefore I now said, that this was far from being univer- 
sally true. There were two controversies particularly, to 
which I would refer : one was as to the seat of Infalbbility. 
Italy and France are hopelessly divided ; as to whether Infal- 
bbiHty be vested in the Pope or in a General Council. And 
hundreds of theologians have spent all their strength in de- 
vouring one another like wild beasts, in settling this contro- 
versy, which has not yet been decided. Another is the dis- 
pute as to the Immaculate Conception ; as to whether the 
Conception of Anna, by which she gave birth to Mary, was 
as miraculous and free from original sin as the conception of 
Mary in giving birth to the Messiah. There never arose be- 
tween two rival sects of Protestants, a controversy carried on 
with more fiend-like malice and ferocity than that w^hich cbar- 
acterized the disputes between the rival Orders of the Domin- 
icans and Franciscans on this subject. And it must be allowed 
that these concern matters of the first and last importance in 
the Church of Rome. 

This person was a young man of about my own age — per- 
haps a year younger — and this parity of years led to much 
frank and sincere interchange of thought on the subject of re- 
ligion. He always stated his objections and difiiculties when- 
ever he felt any, and very frequently when he felt none, he 
stated the objections and difficulties of others, so as to learn 
how I could deal with them. On the present point he said, 
he knew personally, subjects enough of difference among the 
zealous of the clergy of his Church. 

After some further conversation on his own experience as to 
such sources of difference, I asked — 

Is it not a fact that the differences between the various Prot- 



94 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

estant Churches are not on articles of Faith, but principally 
upon mere points of discipline ? That one church is governed 
by Bishops and is called Episcopalian — that another is ruled 
by a Presbytery, and is thence styled Presbyterian — that a 
third is founded on the principles of the freedom of the par- 
ticular church from the authority of any other, and is on that 
account called Independent — that one church prefers an au- 
thorized liturgy — that another chooses a liturgy of her own 
selection — that a third adopts a settled arrangement of ex- 
temporaneous prayer — that one has deacons to regulate its 
services — that another has church-wardens to attend to its af- 
fairs — that a third is carried on without either oife or the 
other — that one church adopts a formal catechismal instruc- 
tion — that a second prefers a Sunday-school system — that a 
third has no system at all — that one church prefers administer- 
ing baptism to infants — that another decides for baptizing 
adults — that one adopts open-air preaching and class-meetings, 
and assemblies in barns and out-houses — that another prefers 
a more formal and regulated system of public service — that 
one church adopts a black dress for its officiating ministers — 
that another prefers a white surplice — that a third will have 
neither one nor the other — these surely are all matters of dis- 
cipline — all mere trifles that have nothing to do with Articles 
of Faith. And yet these and such things as these, are the only, 
or at least the principal points of separation between the vari- 
ous Protestants among us. 

He said, laughing, that although it seemed very absurd, yet 
it was very true. These were not Articles of Faith : they were 
merely matters of discipline. But are there not also, he asked, 
some differences on articles of faith ? 

I said — 'No, And then added, that when we speak of Ar- 
ticles of Faith, we mean the Articles of our Creeds. N'ow, 
our several sects. Church of England, Church of Scotland, In- 
dependents, Methodists, Baptists, and generally all the Prot- 
estant Churches hold each and all the Articles contained in 
the Creeds. There may be shades of difference as to the ex- 
planation of words and things, but they are all agreed in the 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 95 

main. My full conviction is that tlicre is as close and com- 
pact a union of doctrine in tlie Protestant Cliurcli as in the 
several churches constituting the body of the Roman Church ; 
while in matters of discipline, it was no easy matter to deter- 
mine in which the greatest variety was found to exist. The 
great and plain truth seems to be this — Romanists have their 
fiifferences about what their Church says, but they agree to 
refer all to the decision of the Papal See. There is their point 
of unity. Protestants have their differences among themselves 
about what the Holy Scriptures say, but they are all agreed to 
refer all to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The7'e is 
their point of unity. 

He was very much struck with this statement ; he seemed 
fully to take it in. It seemed to satisfy the feeling that 
was at work in his inner mind. He expressed himself very 
strongly. 

I then continued, and asked again — 

But what is the real force or strength of this objection ? It 
assumes, that because the Protestant Churches are divided, 
when they ought to be united, they therefore are not true 
churches, and there is no truth in Protestantism. Perhaps 
the simplest mode of dealing with this objection is, by produc- 
ing a parallel. I will suppose the case of a Jew, or of a Mo- 
hammedan, or of a Hindoo, who is asked to become a Chris- 
tian ; he at once refuses on the ground that there is no truth 
in Christianity. He is pressed for his arguments, and he ar- 
gues that the Christian Churches are divided — that there are 
Roman Churches and Greek Churches and Asiatic Churches 
and Protestant Churches — that they are thus divided when 
they ought to be united — that as Christianity is one and the 
Church of Christ one, and the people of Christ desired by 
Him to be one ; so none of these can be true Churches of 
Christ, and there can be no truth in this Christianity. The 
argument of the Romanist as against the Protestant Churches, 
is strictly parallel to the argument of the Jew, the Mussulman, 
or the Hindoo, as against the Christian Churches at large ; 
and therefore, if there be any force in the argument against 



96 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Protestantism on the ground of its divisions, then there is 
equal force in the argument against Christianity on the ground 
of its divisions. And if, on the other hand, the .Christian may 
laugh to scorn the objections of the Jew, the Mussulman, and 
the Hindoo, as against Christianity, then may the Protestant 
laugh to scorn the objections of the Romanist, as against our 
Protestantism. 

Twenty-seven y=ears have passed away since these conversa- 
tions, of which the foregoing was a very small portion, were 
held. Since then I have seen no reason to change my opin- 
ions or to depart from my position. On the other hand, I 
have visited many lands and have been a not inattentive ob- 
server of the working of the Church of Rome, both in the 
city of the church, in Rome herself — and in almost every 
country in Europe. 

That opportunity for observation through many successive 
years has strengthened my views, and I feel more strongly 
than ever, that of all the churches of Christendom, the very 
last that ought to sj^eak of diversities or divisions, is the Church 
of Rome. It is her boast and pride that she admits and sanc- 
tions almost every diversity of doctrine and of discipline, pro- 
vided there be unity in submission to the Supreme PoutifF of 
Rome. I have myself witnessed in the church of the Propa- 
ganda Fide in Rome, during the season of the Epiphany, no 
less than five different churches, as the Greek, the Armenian, 
the Xestorian, the Syriac, the Coptic, as well as the Roman, 
all celebrating the Lord's Supper, at different altars, and in 
different ways. The ceremonies were different. The man- 
ner of service was different. The forms of worship were dif- 
ferent. The languages were different. In short, I have never 
seen or observed so great a dissimilitude between the Lord's 
Supper in the Lutheran — the Evangelical, the Episcopalian, 
the Presbyterian, the non-conforming churches of the Protes- 
tant Communion, as I have seen and observed among those 
sections of the Eastern Churches that are joined in the com- 
munion of the Roman Church. I have Avitnessed seven dif- 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 97 

ferent forms — seven different liturgies — seven different lan- 
guages — and seven different modes of celebrating tlie Lord's 
Supper, all in the Cliurcli of St. Andrea della Valle in Rome. 
I have witnessed all the Greek rites in a Greek Church — I 
have seen all the Armenian rites in an Armenian Church in 
that city. Every diversity of doctrine and liturgy, and disci- 
pline, and language, is allowed and formally sanctioned, pro- 
vided only all parties observe the one point of unity — submis- 
sion to the supreme Pontiffs of Rome. So far is that carried, 
that in the Concordats or Articles of agreement with Rome, 
there are special clauses reserving to whole countries the right 
to have their own liturgy and rites, and language, in preference 
to that of the Romish Church.* 

In all this the Church of Rome has exhibited her profound 
worldly policy. She imagines and sanctions the utmost di- 
versities and divisions, but she demands a perfect unity under 
the Papal See, and therefore she is the very last church in 
Christendom that should point disparagingly at the diversities 
or divisions of Protestant Christianity, or should make Unity 
the essential note or mark of the true Church. 

The same remark applies to the religious worship of the 
various Roman Catholic countries of Europe. No observant 
traveler will fail to see a very marked difference, amidst much 
that is similar, between the Roman Catholic religion of Italy 
— of Germany — of France — of Ireland, and between them 
all, and that of England. This difference is observable es- 
pecially in public worship, not indeed in the mass-service, which 
preserves a sort of unity, but in almost all the other services. 
The prayers, the Htanies, the rosaries, the festivals are different. 
Even in the litanies to the Virgin Mary, there is as wide a dif- 
ference between, for example that used in my own presence in 
Switzerland, at Einsedhn, and that recited in France, at Paris, 
as it is possible to conceive. Very frequently the beginning 

* Shortly after the Reformation, the Pope offered to sanction the Book 
of Common Prayer in the Church of England, notwithstanding all its 
Protestantism, if only the Church of England would acknowledge the 
authority of the Papal See. • 

5 



98 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and the end are the same, while a totally new and different 
series of petitions, form the middle of the htany. I have 
some of these diverse litanies before me at this moment, hav- 
ing purchased them on the spot. The same remark applies 
to their forms of prayer. The series of services in the chapels 
of the monkish establishments is widely different from the 
services in another of a different order. They are incompar- 
ably more diverse than any thing with which I am acquainted 
in the services of the conformist, or non-conformist churches. 
And as to items or points of belief, every one who has travel- 
ed, is aware of the immense diversities of opinion which pre- 
vail as to infallibility — as to the worship of the Virgin Mary 
— as to the degree of worship due to images and pictures — as 
to indulgences, penances, etc. 

Still her advocates are always vaunting of her unity, and 
objecting to the want of unity, among Protestant Christians ! 

When engag?d in controversy with Roman CathoUcs, I 
have met this objection sometimes in the following way. 

I have narrated a scene which I may have witnessed, in 
which multitudes knelt or prostrated themselves before a little 
moldy bone, or dirty rag — some shivered splinter of a bone, 
or thread of some wretched rag, palmed on them as the rehc 
of some saint — superstitiously rubbed their foreheads to it, or 
devoutly kissed it, and prayed to it in precisely the same way, 
so far as appearances went, as when adoring the Host on the 
altar, which they imagine to be their God. 

Or I have read from some of their devotional works, pub- 
lished in Roman Catholic countries, long passages expository 
of their faith, or long prayers illustrating their devotion, or 
careful directions to g'overn their practice — ^passages of such 
nature as I knew would be rejected and denounced by the 
hearers, such works being published by authority. 

Or, I have stated my having seen the sacrifice of the Mass 
openly sold in the churches — having myself personally pur- 
chased them, and got a receipt formally signed for my money 
— and this money taken by the priests who were selling them, 
under pretense of theif being able to relieve the souls in Pur- 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 99 

gatory, and believed by the people who were buying them, to 
be efficacious to relieve the souls of their departed friends. 

Or, I have stated my having seen and examined many pic- 
tures and images, reputed to be miraculous, that is, represent- 
ed as able to work miracles, by the priests, and believed as 
such by the people — weeping pictures, speaking images, wink- 
ing Madonnas, etc. And the people in thousands worshiping 
them and giving money to them which the priests appropri- 
ated to themselves. 

Or, I have read from works authorized abroad, and some- 
times published in this country, statements speaking of the 
Virgin Mary as Omnipotent, as descending every Saturday 
night to Purgatory to release her worshipers — as able to com- 
mand as her Son Jesus Christ ; statements practically placing 
her in the stead of God. 

Or, I have stated that I have been present and witnessed 
members of the Church of Rome, going on their naked knees, 
in circles round and round upon stones, on the top of a mount- 
ain, believing that they removed their sins by the shedding 
of their own blood streaming from their knees, and stating to 
myself that they were so taught by their priests. 

I have stated these things and things like these to members 
of the Church of Rome, when boasting of their perfect unity ; 
and they invariably exclaimed against them and against their 
being supposed to believe such doctrines or to follow such prac- 
tices. They always reject them, and often denounce them, 
saying that the Roman Catholics of England ought not to be 
judged by the Roman Catholics of other countries. 

I then ask them. Where is their boasted unity ? If thou- 
sands in Italy worship moldy bones, and dirty rags, and be- 
lieve in their miraculous powers, and Roman Catholics of 
England reject and denounce this, then there is no unity be- 
tween them and the Roman Catholics of England. If thou- 
sands in Spain believe in miraculous images and pictures, and 
spend their time and their money on them, and if the Roman 
Catholics of England object to and oppose such superstitions, 
then it is clear their faith and practice is not at unity with 



100 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that of tlie Roman Catliolics of Spain. If millions in France 
read and believe the strangest doctrines respecting the Virgin 
Mary, her nature and her powers, and the Roman Catholics 
of England reject and condemn the books teaching these 
things, then it is plain there is no unity between them on 
such points. K the whole population of some countries be- 
lieve that they can purchase masses, by which to relieve the 
souls of their friends in Purgatory — -and if the priests teach 
them so and sell the masses, then if the Roman Cathohcs of 
England reject and condemn this, it is an evidence that they 
are not of one mind with the Roman Catholics of those other 
countries on the subject. If multitudes in some lands believe 
that they can take away their sins by painful, absurd, and 
superstitious practices, as that of walking on their knees till 
the blood streams from them, and if the Roman Catholics of 
England refuse to hold the same belief or to do the same pen- 
ance, then it is practical evidence of a wide difference of belief 
and practice, and of the absence of the unity of wdiich they 
speak so much. 

I have found by experience that this mode of arguing is 
frequently very successful in silencing some persons. The 
clearly describing practices Hke these, or the reading an ob- 
jectionable passage from some of their books, and asking them 
whether they approve the one or believe the other, wdll very 
often elicit a reply that will illustrate a want of unity ; and 
illustrate it in such a way as will be very effective upon all 
who witness it. At least I have frequently found persons 
sorely troubled, and sometimes entirely silenced by it. And 
therefore, whenever they deny or reject or denounce any such 
doctrine or practice or writing, I always remind theni that 
their doing so is an evidence of as great a difference of private 
judgment in the Roman Churches as in the Protestant 
Churches. 

I have frequently witnessed the effects of another mode of 
dealing, with those who argue in a spirit of controversy and 
vaunt the unity of their Church, against the divisions among 
Protestants. They boldly claim the most perfect and entire 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 101 

unity, saying that altliongli tliere may be diiTerences, as to 
matters of discipline, yet every one throngli tlie whole church 
is in the most perfect accord on every article of Faith, It is 
perfectly surprising and sometimes imposing, how confidently 
this assertion is hazarded. 

I have asked such persons, especially when many are pres- 
ent, whether i\\QY believe that Protestants, being out of the 
Eoman Church, can be saved ? 

Being afraid of being thought illiberal and bigoted, espe- 
cially when many persons are present, they usually answer in 
the affirmative — that Protestants may be saved out of the 
Church of Rome. 

I have then read the article of their creed : after specifying 
transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, papal supremacy, 
etc., and asserting these to be the Catholic faith of the Roman 
Church, it goes on to say, " This is the true Catholic faith, out 
of which no man can be saved." Here then is an article of 
faith. Do you believe it ? 

If there are many Roman Catholics present, this question is 
certain to divide them, and on such occasions, it is perfectly 
surprising to witness the violent evidence they give, showing 
how little unity exists among them on this " article of Faith." 

The desire of some to adhere to this creed, and the desire 
of others to be thought liberal, leads to strange collisions. It 
always puts an end to any previous boasting on the subject of 
unity. 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 

A Conversation on the Holiness of Gliurclies — The Claim of the Church of Rome as 
the alone " Holy Church'' — Ilcr first ground, Holiness of Doctrine— This as ap- 
plicable to other Churches — Contradiction of the Church of Rome — Her second, 
Holy Sacraments— Her third, Holy Saints— This Examined— Martin Luther and 
Henry YIIL— The Objection as connected wilh their Names Answered. 

There was in a parish several miles distant from me, a 
small knot of very active and zealous members of the Church 
of Rome. They used to meet often, and by books and conversa- 
tion managed to make themselves up on controverted subjects. 
Some of them distinguished themselves by their steady, de- 
termined opposition to the movement at work, at that time, 
in the minds of the masses, and they not unfrequently used to 
challenge the more earnest and best-informed Protestants, to 
discuss the contested points of doctrine and discipline. 

One of these was a clever, intelligent man. He was the 
head of the Carmelites or Scapularians in the district, and 
was much looked up to by the peasantry, as a right, proper 
man. He was shrewd and sharp, but cold and unimpressible. 
His temper v/as perfect equanimity itself. No one could speak 
a word that could change the still, immovable expression of 
his features. He was as a marble, or rather a wooden statue, 
when speaking or inquiring. And yet his appearance was 
prepossessing. A bald head, a smooth chin, a sleek shining 
face, a quick, keen, dark eye, a nose intensely Irish, and pre- 
senting altogether, a neat, clean, precise-looking personage. 

He was the head of the confraternity of Carmelites or 
Scapularians of the district. These persons all wear a scapular 
inside their clothes, near the left shoulder. They meet to- 
gether for the purpose of praying souls out of Purgatory, and 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 103 

they believe — it is a privilege granted to all that wear the 
scapular in life, a privilege secured to them on the faith of a 
Papal Bull — that the Virgin Mary descends every Saturday 
night to Purgatory, and bears with her to heaven all who 
have worn the scapular. 

This man was supposed to be such a master of religion 
that he could easily confute every argument that could be ad- 
vanced by me. Some of his fellow-parishioners, who were in- 
quiring into religious things for themselves, and who yet had 
great confidence in him, proposed that there should be a 
meeting between us in the presence of some twenty of their 
members. We met at the house of a Roman Catholic farmer, 
and the question proposed was. The True Church. 

He commenced by stating that the Church is holy — that 
it is one of the notes or marks of the true Church that it is 
holy — that in the creed called the Mcene, and which is re- 
ceived by Romanists and Protestants alike, it is called the 
" one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," and in the Apostles' 
Creed is called " the Holy Cathohc Church ;" and that this 
note or mark of holiness was to be the test by v/hich the 
claim of any Church must be tried, if it claims to be the true 
Church of Jesus Christ. He then referred to a number of 
places in Holy Scripture, in v/hich it is stated that the people 
of God should be a holy people ; as, " Ye are an holy nation," 
and " Be ye holy, for the Lord our God is holy," and " With- 
out holiness no man shall see the Lord." And thus, as he 
conceived, he proved that holiness was an essential mark of 
the true Church, concluding by asking me whether I assented 
to his statement. 

I immediately assented, saying, that there could be no doubt 
or question as to the necessity for hohness. God is a holy 
God ; the Saviour is a holy Saviour ; the Spirit is a holy 
Spirit ; and, therefore, every doctrine revealed of God must 
necessarily be a holy doctrine ; and every practice taught of 
God must be a holy practice. His heavens, I added, are a 
holy place ; His angels are holy angels ; His redeemed and 
glorified people are a holy people. And in the Holy Scrip- 



104 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

tures the name given to all His people on earth is that of 
" saints," which means " holy ones," or " sanctified ones." 
There can be no doubt or question, therefore, that holiness, in 
the meaning of the Scriptures, is a fitting test to try every 
doctrine and every practice, and a mark or note of the true 
Church : a church must be a holy church. 

This admission on my part seemed to give him great satis- 
faction. He seemed to have expected a difi'erent answer, 
though it was difficult to imagine on what grounds. At all 
events, he expressed himself greatly pleased, as if relieved of 
the necessity for proving his position. 

He then said, that holiness being a mark or note of the 
true Church, as had been admitted by me, the next point for 
him to prove was, that this note or mark belonged to the 
Church of Borne. Now, a church, he added, may be holy in 
three difi'erent ways. She may have, in the first place, holi- 
ness of doctrine — that is, that all her doctrines are holy ; or 
she may have, in the second place, the means, the sacramental 
means, of imparting holiness to her members ; or, lastly, she 
may have produced and nourished and perfected the most 
holy saints as her children. A church, he added, in conclu- 
sion, may be holy in any one of these three particulars ; but, 
if a church has each and all of them at the same time, 
then indeed she is a holy church ; and this — this, he said 
emphatically, is the Church of Eome ; for all her doctrines 
are holy — all her sacraments are means to holiness — and all 
the saints were her members'. 

I was pleased with the precision of his statements, saying, 
that it would enable all our hearers to understand the argu- 
ment clearly ; and I suggested that we should take each of 
these three particulars separately, and examine their applica- 
bility to our respective churches. I suggested that this would 
be our easiest course for ourselves, as well as the most simple 
and intelHgible for our hearers. This suggestion met with 
universal approval, so I begged of him to state the first par- 
ticular. 

He was a precise and methodical controversialist in the 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 105 

beaten track, as laid down in most of tlie controversial works 
of his church ; so he said, that all the doctrines of the Church 
of Rome were holy. The doctrine of the Trinity, of the God- 
head of the Son, Jesus Christ, of the Personality of the Holy 
Ghost, of the incarnation, of the atonement, of regeneration, 
of sanctification, of redemption — all these doctrines were holy 
doctrines, and the Church of Rome, which holds and teaches 
them, must be a holy church. He then opened Milner's 
*' End of Controversy," and read the same argument from 
him in these words : " It is time to speak of the doctrine of 
the Catholic Church. If this was once Holy, namely in the 
Apostolic age, it is Holy still, because the church never 
changes her doctrines, nor suffers any persons in her com- 
munion to change it, or to question any part of it. Hence 
the adorable mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., 
taught by Christ and his Apostles, and defined by the four 
first general councils, are now as firmly believed by every 
real Catholic, throughout the whole communion, as they 
were when these councils w^ere held." Such, he added, was 
his argument, proving that the doctrines of his church were 
holy doctrines ; and, therefore, the Church of Rome was a 
holy church. 

I replied, by saying, that all the doctrines he had specified 
were certainly holy doctrines. And that every one of them 
were held in our Protestant Churches, as strongly, as clearly, 
and as fully as the Roman Churches. The Trinity, the God- 
head of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation, the 
Atonement, etc., were all held among us as well as among 
them. And therefore, if this is to be the evidence of holiness 
of doctrines, then the Protestant Churches are fully as holy as 
the Roman Churches, and there can be no exclusive claim to 
this epithet ; and thus we have as much right to call our- 
selves " the Holy Catholic Church" as any other in Christen- 
dom. I appealed to all present, and then to himself, as to 
whether it was not a fact that the Protestants — especially the 
Church of England in her Articles — quite as much as the 
Romanists held these doctrines, and whether this fact, so far 

5* 



106 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

as it went, did not give us as much claim to the epithet of 
" Holy." 

I perceived at once, that the persons present saw the argu- 
ment as clearly as myself ; so I continued and said, that the 
question was not as to the holiness of those doctrines which 
both our churches hold alike, but of those on which we dififer. 
There are some things on which both churches are agreed. 
There are others on which we differ. The real question is — 
whether those doctrines of the Church of Rome, on which we 
differ, and which we reject, are holy doctrines ? Here, I said, 
here, for example, is the creed of the Church of Rome, com- 
monly called the creed of Pope Pius. In this creed — now the 
recognized creed of the Church of Rome- — are, first of all, the 
articles of the Nicene Creed, and secondly, all the articles of 
the Council of Trent added to them. I^ow the question at 
present between us is not, as to the holiness of the former 
articles, but as to the latter. These are — the supremacy of 
Peter, the authority of the Church of Rome, the doctrine of a 
purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, of masses for the dead, 
of images and relics, and all such things as are peculiar to the 
Church of Rome. The question between us is, as to whether 
these are holy doctrines — so holy as to secure to your church 
the title of " the Holy Church," and to deprive us of thai 
title because w^e reject them. We feel that they are unscrip- 
tural and therefore unholy. 

There w^as here a pause, as my opponent gave no answ^er or 
explanation. 

I asked him to prove that these peculiar doctrines, especially 
that of purgatory and of indulgences, were holy. 

He Avas still silent. He seemed perplexed, and all present 
seemed more interested than ever. 

I then continued, saying that there were two considerations 
in favor of our Protestant Christianity. In the first place, all 
its doctrines in the Holy Scriptures, were drawn from them 
were founded on them, and on them alone. They were 
all in the holy word of the holy God ; and, therefore, they 
must necessarily be holy doctrines. On that point there can 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 107 

be no dispute. In the next place, all its doctrines are received 
and believed in the Church of Rome herself, and therefore she 
must allow those to be holy ; for example, we believe two 
sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper : the Church of 
Rome believes them also. We believe the Holy Scriptures to 
be the word of God, and so far a rule of faith ; the Church of 
Rome believes this also. We believe in the intercession of 
Jesus Christ ; the Church of Rome believes it also. She may 
indeed add, and does add, five other nominal sacraments to 
our two, and adds tradition to our Scriptures, and adds the in- 
tercession of Mary and the saints to Christ's ; but still she 
believes and admits all ours. And so wdth all the other points 
of difference ; she holds all the doctrines of our Protestant 
Christianity, however she may add to them. And, therefore, 
she must acknowledge our doctrines to be holy ; and therefore 
so far as doctrines go, she must acknowledge that our church 
has a good claim to the title of a holy church. 

To this the only reply was, that the Protestant Church had 
not so many or so effectual means of promoting holiness in 
her members ; for although her doctrines w^ere certainly held 
likewise by the Church of Rome, yet she had not in the sacra- 
ments so many means of imparting the grace of holiness to 
her members. The Protestant had but two, \vhile the Church 
of Rome had seven. 

I reminded him that that was the second way in which her 
members were to test the claim to holiness — that the first was 
the holiness of doctrine : that now he seemed to have aban- 
doned that, and to have entered on she second test, namely, 
the sacramental means of imparting holiness. 

He acknowledged this. 

I, therefore, reminded him, that the Protestant Churches 
had the sacraments also, as well as the Church of Rome — that 
they had the sacrament of Baptism which Christ appointed — 
that they had the sacrament of the Lord's Supper which Christ 
instituted; and that, therefore, whatever special means of 
sanctity or holiness are found in the sacramental rites, they 



108 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

are not the exclusive property of either church, they must 
beloEo^ to both ahke. 

He said, that all this might be true,. so far as these two 
sacraments are concerned, but these were only two, and the 
Protestant Churches had only these two. The Church of 
Rome had five others. Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, 
Orders, and Extreme Unction. And thus she had five addi- 
tional means of sacramental grace, over and beside the two 
that Protestants possessed. This was uttered in a tone and 
manner that argued the speaker's conviction of having set the 
argument at rest. And it seemed to have weight with our 
hearers. 

I asked him quietly, perhaps humbly, whether he did not 
agree with me that the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper were the two greatest of all the sacraments, as being 
the two specially appointed by Christ himself. 

He said, that it might, perhaps, be so — that he believed so. 

I then reminded him, that we had those two sacraments 
that are admitted to be the greatest and most precious — the 
two appointed by Christ himself. And now, I continued, have 
we not all the others also, except one ? We have Confirma- 
tion, although we do not call it a sacrament, so that we have 
the thing, though not the name. We have Confession and 
Eepentance, not indeed to the ear of a man, but to God him- 
self. We have Orders, for we are as strict in ordaining minis- 
ters as the Church of Rome herself. We have Marriage as 
fully as in any other church. It is true we do not give the 
name of sacrament to these rites, but we have them, we have 
the rites themselves under their own proper names. And, 
therefore, whatever means of sanctity or holiness may be in 
them, they belong to us as much as to the Church of Rome. 
We do not call Confirmation a sacrament, for it was not 
appointed as such by Christ : we do not call Confession and 
Penance a sacrament, as it never was so appointed, but we 
insist on confession of sin to God, and the necessity of repent- 
ance toward God. We do not call Marriao-e a sacrament of 
the Gospel, for it began in Paradise and exists among Jews 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 109 

and Heathens as much as among Christians. Neither do we 
call Orders a sacrament, for it was never so appointed by- 
Christ Whatever is valuable in any or all of these, we have 
retained; we retain the things themselves, with the alone 
exception of Extreme Unction, and we reject it, because it 
was never appointed by Christ. And thus if there be any 
special means of sanctity or holiness in these ordinances, then 
we have them in all our churches as much as in the Church 
of Rome. 

He seemed to hesitate here, as if he had not seen the point 
in this light before. 

I therefore asked him to name any one real means of grace, 
or holiness in the Church of Rome, which we did not also 
possess. 

On his still hesitating, I said that I would speak a few 
words on two remarkable contradictions in the nominal sacra- 
ments of his Church. One in relation to marriage, and the 
other, to extreme unction. 

The first is this. — She holds that celibacy is a state more 
holy than matrimony — that unmarried people as such, are 
more holy than married people as such. Now all this may 
seem to me to be very absurd, or very unscriptural, or very 
wrong, but still it is very intelligible. I can fully understand 
it. But contrary to this, is another doctrine which teaches 
that the sacraments confer more grace, giving an increase of 
grace ; so that after receiving a sacrament, we have more 
holiness than before. Now, among these sacraments, which 
thus confer an increase of grace, is matrimony ; and therefore 
the sacrament of matrimony confers a larger amount of the 
grace of holiness than before. Here, then, is the contradiction. 
Celibacy is held to be a state more holy than matrimony. 
And yet matrimony, as a living sacrament, confers more holy 
grace on the married ; though all the while it is a state less 
holy than celibacy ; — this contradiction, I said, has never yet 
been explained to my satisfaction. 

Some of those present seemed greatly amused at this con- 
tradiction ; and though I paused for an explanation, my op- 



110 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ponent had nothing to olier. I therefore said that I would 
direct attention to a curious contradiction involved in the sup- 
posed sacrament of extreme unction. When we ask of what 
value it is, and what special work does it accomplish on the 
believer, they reply that it takes away the " relics or remain- 
ders" of sins, which had not been taken away by the previous 
sacraments. Now this language implies an impeachment of 
the efficiency of the preceding absolution, whether in the 
administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in 
the sacrament of penance ; for if that absolution was com- 
plete, valid, and effective, it must have absolved all the sins ; 
and yet it is now said that extreme unction takes away the 
" relics or remainders " of sins ! Either the absolution was 
effective, and then the extreme unction is useless, or the 
extreme unction was effective, and then the absolution is 
worthless. And so again there seems a contradiction between 
extreme unction and Purgatory ; for if extreme unction took 
away all the " relics or remainders" of sins, then there can be 
nothing remaining for Purgatory to purge away. And if 
there be any thing for Purgatory to remove, it plainly implies 
that neither the absolution has taken away all the sins, nor 
extreme unction all the " relics or remainders," or there cer- 
tainly could have been nothing at least of the guilt for pur- 
gatory to remove. 

All this seemed plain enough, and yet on asking my op- 
ponent to resolve the apparent contradiction, he evidently was 
embarrassed. He said, in reference to Purgatory, that it purged 
away the suffering or penance — the temporal punishment due 
for the sins, and not the guilt of the sin. This, he said, was 
removed by the sacraments. As to the other part of the dif- 
ficulty, however, he was perfectly silent. 

A shrewd man, who was present, asked him whether the 
absolution given by the priest did not take away all the guilt, 
and whether, when the sick man had received the commu- 
nion, in a fit state of mind — that is, confessed and contrite, 
all the guilt of his sins was not removed ? He said he much 
wished for an answer to that question. 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. Ill 

Our friend was sadly perplexed at this, especially when 
thus put to him by one of his co-religionists, but he continued 
silent ; so the question was repeated, and all present watched 
for an explanation, but it never came. They were evidently 
disappointed. 

I suggested our passing to the third mark of holiness. 

He said that there could be no dispute on that point, for 
the Protestants could make no claim to the holy saints. The 
Protestant Church has never produced one single holy saint. 
She might boast of Martin Luther, who broke his vows of 
celibacy and married a nun, who also broke her vows ; she 
might boast of Henry VHL with his multitude of vdves, but 
she could not produce one single holy saint. Now the Church 
of Eome produced all the saints ; she is holy, for she is the 
blessed mother of all the saints ; all the saints were members 
of the Church of Eome, belonged to her communion, and 
held all her articles of faith. 

This statement — apparently made in a tone to regain lost 
influence — was not without some influence upon our hearers, 
and I saw that they were waiting for my reply. I merely 
asked him to be so kind as to repeat for me the " Confiteor," 
or form of confession. 

He complied. — " I confess to Almighty God, to the blessed 
Virgin," etc. 

And now, said I, that you have so kindly given to me the 
names of the Virgin Mary and the principal Apostles, the 
names of those you call the queen of saints, and chief and 
greatest of all the saints, I should like to know whether they 
belonged to the Church of Rome ? This question elicited a 
smile that showed how all present felt its point. I therefore 
continued. We never read that the Virgin Mary was a mem- 
ber of the Church of Rome. The Scriptures speak of her 
only at Jerusalem. We never read that John the Baptist was 
ever at Rome. The Scriptures speak of him only nigh to 
Jerusalem. As to Peter, and Paul, and James, and John, and 
all the Apostles, we never read of them as members of the 
Church of Rome. Some of them may have visited that city ; 



lis EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

but we read of them all in the Scriptures, as members of the 
first of all churches, the Church of Jerusalem. 

He acknowledged this so far as the Virgin Mary and John 
the Baptist were concerned ; and added that he did not mean 
in what he had said to refer to them, but only to the later 
saints — St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, St. Igna- 
sius, St. Ambrose, and to such holy and blessed ones as St. 
Dominic, St. Francis, St. Bernard. All these belonged to the 
Church of Eome. They all lived and died before the Protest- 
ant Reformation. 

I am sure, I replied, with all possible courtesy, you will at 
once acknowledge your mistake here, when I ask you of what 
place St. Augustine was the bishop ? 

He rephed — Hippo, in Africa. 

And, I continued — St. Chrysostom, where was he bishop ? 

He replied at once — Constantinople. 

Then, said I, you will at once acknowledge that neither one 
nor the other belonged to the Church of Rome. Hippo was in 
Africa, and St. Augustine was a bishop of the ancient African 
Church, and not of the Roman Church. And, as Constanti- 
nople was then, and is still the chief city of the Greek or 
Eastern Church, so St. Chrysostom belonged to the Greek or 
Eastern Church, and not to the Roman or Western Church. 
And so with many others of these saints ; they never belonged 
to the Church of Rome. But as for the so-called saints of 
later times, I see no force in the argument, and for this reason 
— all these so-called saints are saints of her own choosing, 
and naming, and canonizing ; and as Protestants do not pre- 
tend to canonize saints, so the Church of Rome has it all to 
herself. She canonizes only her own. The Pope is not likely 
to canonize a Protestant — any one not of his own commu- 
nion ; and therefore, he may very easily say that all the saints 
are members of his church. 

Our hearers smiled at this, and seemed to feel it was answer 
enough to the argument. 

There was no more said by my opponent, and I proceeded 
to argue that he had given no sufficient grounds for his asser- 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 113 

tion that the Church of Rome alone had a right to regard 
herself as the "one holy Church." The Protestant churches 
could all claim the epithet with as good a reason, if the ques- 
tion was to be decided by holiness of doctrine — holiness of 
sacraments — or holiness of members. 

But, said one of those present, a church that came from 
Martin Luther and Henry VIIL, could not be a holy church ; 
for one broke his vows and was a perjured man, and the other 
was a man of lust who murdered his wives. They were a 
queer sort of saints. 

I replied to this man, that Martin Luther was a Roman 
Catholic priest or monk — that he had taken the usual vows 
against marrying — that he lived at a time when priests and 
monks, though they did not marry wives of their own, were 
disgracefully intimate with the wives of other men — that 
Martin Luther saw this with his own eyes, and knew it was the 
common practice of his brother priests and monks, and 
thought it better that they should have wives — honestly have 
wives of their own than dishonestly live with the wives of 
other men — that thinking this he resolved to marry, and so 
married one who had been a nun, and who preferred living 
honestly and modestly as his lawful wife, to living dishonestly 
and immodestly, as did too many of her sister-nuns. And, I 
added, as for Henry VIIL, it is not for me or any Protestant 
to defend him. He was born of Roman Catholic parents — 
baptized in the Church of Rome — educated as a Roman 
Catholic — ascended the throne as a member of the Church of 
Rome — wrote a book in support of the seven sacraments, and 
in it abused Martin Luther to the utmost — put Protestants to 
death for not believing transubstantiation — died, leaving 
money in his will for masses for his soul in Purgatory. The 
wretched man was a Roman Catholic born, bred, educated ; — 
and quarreled only with Rome on the subject of the Pope's 
authority. He broke with the Pope on the subject of •his au- 
thority, but always held the doctrines of the Church of Rome. 
Whatever were his faults, they were the faults of his Roman 
Catholic education. 



114 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

But have you ever heard of some of the Popes of the 
Church of Rome ? The world has never in all the times of 
heathenism known such monsters of vice, filthiness, savage- 
iiess, and atrocity, as some of them. There was no sin that 
could be named that was not perpetrated by some of them. 

O, but, exclaimed our friend, we don't look upon the Popes 
personally as infalhble. They may have been very bad men, 
as private men, and yet as the head of the church they may 
have been infallible. 

I said the question was not as to their infallibility, but if 
it be objected against Protestants, that Martin Luther married 
a nun, and that Henry VIII. was a monster of crime, I an- 
swer that there were twenty popes incomparably worse in all 
vice and immorality, and in the perpetration of the most 
bloody and atrocious crimes. But, I added, neither church is 
to be judged by the bad men that may be found within them. 
They must be tried by the word of God. The great question 
for our churches is, whether they hold the holy doctrines and 
practice, the holy discipline taught in holy word of our holy 
God — whether they teach the people holiness of doctrine and 
holiness of practice ; and so teach them that the people re- 
ceive holy doctrines, and carry out holy practice in their lives. 
This is the great question for us all, and I said I would con- 
fidently appeal to all present whether they did not think the 
Protestant clergy in their neighborhood at least as holy, as 
religious, as full of good works, and charity among the poor, 
as any of the Roman Catholic clergy. And whether they 
did not find that their Protestant neighbors were quite as holy 
and as moral and ready to do good to all around them, as 
any of their Roman Catholic neighbors ? 

With one voice they acknowledged this. 

I said, therefore, that I could not see wherein the Churcli 
of Rome was more holy than the Church of England. And 
that I could not make out why the Church of England had 
not as much right as the Church of Rome to be called " the 
Holy Church." I was sure of this, I added, that God's holy 
word — God's Holy Scriptures — are the fountain of all holy 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 115 

knowledge ; and that so long as we keep close to tliem, and 
read, and study, and love, and conform our hearts, and minds, 
and lives to them, praying for the light and teaching, and 
grace of the Holy Spirit, we shall be members of that church 
of which God is the Father, and Jesus Christ the Saviour, 
and the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. 

There was. little else said on this occasion, and I felt that 
the confidence of the parties present was much shaken as to 
the person who acted as their spokesman. He had led them 
to expect a wonderful triumph over me. He left my presence 
much humbled. 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 

Whether the Church of England be the Catholic Church— A Branch of it— Meaning 
of the Terms, Church and Catholic — Application of the Name to the Church of 
Eome — Meaning of the Words in the Creed — The Invisible as distinct from the 
Ylsible Church— The gradual Decay and Diminution of the Church of Rome— 
Comparison of Numbers. 

In the times of much controversy in Ireland, it was not un- 
common for invitations, somewhat in the form of challenge* 
to public discussion, to pass between the opponent churches ; 
or, more correctly expressing it, between the more active and 
zealous partisans of Eomanism and Protestantism. 

However strange such a mode of procedure may appear to 
some minds, it had great attractions, because great suitable- 
ness for that phase of mind peculiar to the population of Ire- 
land. The clergy who took an active lead in controversy were 
universally the favorites of the people. They always regarded 
the challenger as a bold, brave, earnest, and sincere man — as 
one who did not fear to let the light in upon his princijDles or 
practices. And on the other hand, whenever a challenge was 
refused without good and valid cause in the estimation of the 
people, the individual fell invariably in public esteem, as one 
who was unable to defend his principles, or who was afraid to 
have his practices exposed. It was a strange state of things. 

I undertook the charge of a parish for a few weeks for a 
brother curate who was weak in health. The Roman Catholic 
Priest was supposed to be a bold, fearless, and able man, who 
was constantly from the altar denouncing the Protestant clergy 
and Protestant people, pouring ridicule in unsparing measure 



THE CATHOLICIiy OF THE CHLKCH. 11^ 

upon their religion, challenging by name the weak and con- 
sumptive, and indeed dpng man, who was curate of the parish, 
and who, whatever was his will, was wholly without the 
physical strength requisite for such a strife. 

I was fully aware of the proceedings of this polemical priest, 
and of the sort of moral influence he had obtained over the 
people by his fearless bearing. I watched for the opportunity 
to diminish it ; but, before I could possibly take any step in 
the aff'air, I was startled by the visit of five Roman Catholics, 
all respectable peasants of the place, who announced them- 
selves as deputed by a large number of their co-religionists, to 
request me to accept the challenge of their priest ; expressing 
themselves as anxious for inquiry, and prepared to bear me 
through it. I felt that my position was a strange one, con- 
sidering the parties who made the request. And being then 
young, zealous, ardent, and confident in the cause I had to 
defend, I acceded, perhaps, rather hastily to the request. 

The very same evening the priest delivered a controversial 
lecture in the parish chapel against the doctrines of the Prot- 
estants ; and again, as on former occasions, threw down a 
challenge to all Protestant clergymen to defend their church 
against him ; stating that he would not go to public meetings, 
but would there, in that very chapel, receive any Protestant 
clergyman and discuss the subject before his whole congrega- 
tion. 

This challenge causing no slight sensation in the neighbor- 
hood, was immediately communicated to me, by the same 
parties. I declared my readiness to accept it, and only waited 
till the priest should name the subject for discussion. On the 
following week he challenged me from the altar, to prove the 
Church of England to be the " holy Catholic Church," men- 
tioned in the Apostle's creed. I replied to the deputation who 
informed me of this, that I could not undertake to prove her 
to be " the holy Catholic Church," because I could not prove 
that a part was the whole ; but that I would undertake to prove 
that it was a part, a portion, a branch of " the holy Catholic 
Church." I pointed out to them the reason of this distinction, 



118 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

as I could not prove that any particular cliurcli, was the uni- 
versal church — the Church of Christ. They were perfectlv 
satisfied with this, which they seemed fully to understand ; and 
I therefore declared my intention of attending at the Roman 
Catholic chapel on the next evening of lecture, and enteiing 
on the discussion, if they and their priest were so disposed. 

I went there at the usual hour, accompanied by another 
clergyman. As I approached the chapel, the former deputa- 
tion, accompanied by a crowd of other Roman Catholics, came 
forward to meet and receive me, and taking me bodily into 
their center, so as none but themselves could touch me, they 
entered. The whole congregation, who were all standing and 
listening to the controversial lecture of their priest, instantly 
divided, making an open way for the deputation and myself 
till was I safely deposited, face to face with the priest, at the 
foot of the altar. That the priest was taken by surprise, was 
very apparent. He had never expected such a scene. He 
continued his address for a short time, and then in a few con- 
fused and hurried sentences concluded his lecture, and w^as 
withdrawing to the vestry — perhaps to prepare for the coming 
discussion. According to an arrangement, already made with 
the deputation, I immediately placed in the hands of the priest, 
as he was withdrawing, a letter — a written ^acceptance of his 
proposal, and expressing my willingness to enter on the dis- 
cussion at that moment before the congregation. The expect- 
ation and excitement of the people was intense, as they saw 
him reading my letter, and as they waited for the discussion 
which to them seemed inevitable, after all his previous chal- 
lenges. He read the letter carefully, and slowly folded it up 
— said with a loud voice, that the Church of Rome was " the 
holy Catholic Church" — that they were already in possession 
of the church, and did not need any further inquiry or search 
after it — for that they need not search for what they had al- 
ready found ! And saying this, he instantly left the altar, and 
withdrew to the vestry. 

I shall never forget the scene at this moment. The deep 
disappointment of the people — the strong resentment at what 



THE CATHOLICITY CF THE CHURCH. 119 

they called his fears — the bold request of maDy that I would 
take his place at the altar, and address them — and above all 
the excited and stormy character of the disordered congrega- 
tion, were almost appalling. I felt unnerved at the moment, 
and almost regretted having gone so far, till higher thoughts 
came to my aid, and I felt that He, whom I desired to serve, 
could sustain me — and he did both counsel and sustain me. 
It flashed across my mind that if I accepted the invitation of 
the people, and addressed them in that place, it would be put- 
ting myself into the power of the law, which would be most 
unwise ; I therefore declined, but added to those about me 
that I would withdraw from the chapel and address them out- 
side. We withdrew, and being accompanied by about one 
third of the congregation, we entered a large school-house, and 
there I addressed at some length, a deeply attentive congrega- 
tion of several hundreds of Roman Catholics. 

The Priest never again delivered a challenge, or even an- 
other lecture against the Protestant church. 

This circumstance led to the visits of many persons, anx- 
ious for information on certain questions of controversy. 

It is of vast importance to the right conduct of our contro- 
versy with Rome, that we be very careful as to our statements. 
That the Church of England is a part or branch of the Church 
of Christ, is a most certain truth. That she is the Church of 
Christ is as certainly an untruth. This distinction is very ob- 
vious, and yet from a neglect of this distinction among Prot- 
estants, they have fallen into inextricable difficulties. And the 
Romanists know this, and therefore constantly ask us to prove 
that our church is the Church of Christ, The answer on all 
such occasions, should be, that we would undertake to prove 
our national and particular church to be, not the church of 
Christ, but a Church of Christ, as being a part or branch — a 
particular church among the many, the aggregate of which 
constitutes the one Catholic or universal church. 

In a discussion on this subject, on which I was at this time 
engaged in private, it was urged by my opponent that the 
church of Rome had extended through all time, and had 



120 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

spread over all nations — that in this respect she had far ex- 
ceeded all other churches, which were of more modern growth, 
and of more limited and merely local extent — that for antiqui- 
ty and extent no other church can hold comparison with her, 
— and that as she alone can make any claim to be Catholic, 
that is, universal, so she alone is " the Catholic Church" of the 
creeds. 

The answer I have ever found most effectual to this, is a 
fair explanation of the terms. I have therefore laid down two 
things : 

Firsts I have called to mind that the word " Church," as it 
occurs in Holy Scripture, simply means an assembly or con- 
gregation, even a ciWl or political assembly, as in Acts xix. 
39, and 41, when it was merely a civil meeting: — that it is 
sometimes applied to the little congregation of Christians as- 
sembled in a private house, as in Col. iv. 15 : sometimes to 
the larger congregations of Christian persons assembled in 
one town or city, as in Rom. xvi. 1 ; sometimes to the aggre- 
gate of the several congregations, that may be found in any 
province or country; as in 1 Cor. xvi. 1. And sometimes it 
is applied to the aggregate of all these particular churches of 
Christ, as constituting the Church of God, — the church of the 
redeemed — " the church mihtant here on earth," while at 
other times it has a wider range, embracing both the Church 
below, and the Church above, that is, the universal or Catho- 
lic Church of Chiist, ^' the general assembly and Church of 
the first-born, whose names are written in Heaven," as Heb. 
xii. 23. 

Secondly^ I have endeavored to settle well and clearly, the 
meaning of the phrase "the Catholic Church." The word 
" cathohc" signifies " all " or " whole " or " universal." So 
that it is clear, that " the Catholic Church" does not mean, 
merely a particular church, assembled in any private house, 
nor merely a particular cliurch, assembling in any special town 
or city, nor merely any aggregate of churches, collected in any 
one country, or province, or nation. It does not mean any 
particular church or churches, but "all," the "whole," or 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 121 

" universal," of the Cliurclies of Christ, taken in the aggregate 
or collective aspect. 

The necessary consequence of this, as I have endeavored to 
press on my opponents, is, that if the Church of England called 
herself " the Catholic Church," it would be an unwarrantable 
assumption in making herself the whole, universal Church, and 
therefore, when persons talk of an Anglo-Catholic Church, that 
is of an English universal Church, they only betray their own 
inaccuracy ; " knowing neither what they say, nor whereof 
they ajBarm ;" unless they merely mean a particular church in 
union with all the other churches. And it is precisely the 
same with the Church of Rome. When she calls herself " the 
Catholic Church," it is an assumption as unwarrantable as it 
is inconsistent ; for as her very name implies, she is only a 
local or national church, a particular church, and therefore 
can not possibly be the universal church, unless she merely 
means that she is in connection with all the other churches. 
And though, from the unwillingness among us to quarrel about 
names, we generally allow her to call herself any names she 
pleases, yet this name by which she is so generally called — 
" the Roman Catholic Church," is really tantamount to calling 
her " the particular universal church." 

It is often argued by the advocates of the Church of Rome, 
that the phrase of the Creed, " I believe in the holy Catholic 
Church," must have some more definite application — applica- 
tion to some one visible and outward church, which is univer- 
sal or catholic ; and they can recognize none worthy of the 
name but the Church of Rome. The answer to this is, that 
when we employ these words in the Creed, and say that we 
beheve there is a Catholic Church, we are bound to say clearly 
and distinctly what we believe. As we have already settled 
clearly that it is not a belief in any one local, national, partic- 
ular church, neither the Greek Church, nor the Roman Church, 
nor the Scotch Church, nor the English Church "; so we must 
next settle as clearly, and have it closely settled in our minds, 
what we do believe. 

In order to do this, we must be careful — we can not be too 

6 



122 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

careful, for it is the key to the whole subject — to remember 
that the words occur in the creed, and that a creed, as the 
word means, is a series of truths or things in which you he- 
lieve. They are not things which you see, but things winch 
you see not — not things visible, but things invisible. It is 
only in things unseen and invisible we are said to believe, for 
thino's visible or seen we are said to see and know, and not 
merely to believe in them. If, therefore, you examine the ar- 
ticles of the creed, you will at once perceive that they all are 
things v>^hich v/e have not seen and can not see, being things 
unseen and invisible. '^ I believe in God," He is invisible ; 
" the maker of heaven and earth ;" He was unseen of us when 
he made it. " And in Jesus Christ his only Son" — we have 
not seen him, and yet we believe in him ; and so on with 
every other article separately. They all are declarations as to 
what we have not seen, but still we believe. " I believe in 
the Holy Ghost," we see him not ; " The communion of 
saints," we see not the saints above, and we know not who are 
the saints even here below ; " the forgiveness of sins" is a 
privilege invisible, and can only be believed and felt ; " the 
resurrection of the body" is that which we have never seen 
and yet we believe it shall be ; " and the life everlasting" is 
likewise a thing unseen and invisible now, but one which v/e 
beheve and expect. 

Thus all the articles concern unseen and invisible things. 
And inasmuch as " the Catholic Church" is placed in the 
midst of those articles, so it evidently means that unseen and 
invisible body of redeemed and saved souls, both of the church 
above, and of the church below, which is the true church of 
Jesus Christ ; it is that which we usually speak of, as the 
spiritual and invisible church. It can not mean that which is 
called the " visible church," the body of baptized and profess- 
ing Christians whom we see, and can easily see, because they 
are visible. It can not possibly be this, for as the whole creed 
embodies only those things which are unseen and invisible to 
us now, so it can not on any honest system of interpretation 
be applied to any or to all the seen and visible churches on 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 123 

earth. The article of the creed, therefore, must mean a be- 
lief in that body of faithful ones, who are unseen, and un- 
known of human eye, but who are seen and known of the 
Saviour : " The Lord knoweth them that are his," and who 
constitute " the general assembly and church of the first-born, 
whose names are written in heaven." Thus the church tri- 
umphant above and the church still militant on earth — these, 
Vv^hose individual members are unseen and unknown by us, are 
the " Catholic Church." 

I have found this explanation often satisfactory to inquiring 
minds. And it has been frequently acknowledged to me that 
it resolved what had long been a considerable difficulty. But 
there is a great variety of minds, and very often I have met 
with opponents v/hom nothing could satisfy. And who, study- 
ing Milner's " End of Controversy" much more than the Holy 
Scriptures, go on to argue that the members of the Church of 
Eome are ahvays called Catholics, and their church is always 
called the Catholic Church even by Protestants themselves ; 
and that as we traverse our streets, this designation is so well 
and universally known that all Vvdio ask for the " Catholic" 
church would at once be directed to the Roman church. 

The answer I have usually made to this is, that there is 
some ti'uth in this, but all that is true in it has arisen out of 
our unwillingness to quarrel about words or names. We feel 
that they are not Catholics, and ought not to be called Catho- 
lics ; but if we call them Romanists, as belonging to the 
Church of Rome, they take offense and are angry with us. 
If we call them Papists, as followers of the papacy, they again 
take offense and are still more angry with us. And thus, 
from our kindly and Christian unwilHngness to give offense, 
we prefer calling them by a name, which yet we feel to be in- 
appropriate, inaccurate, and objectionable. We call them 
Catholics^ simply to avoid giving them offense, and then they 
take advantage of this and argue that we recognize them as 
Catholics ! This is but a poor return for our kindness and un- 
willingness to offend them. 

I have found this frequently an adequate answer to persons 



124 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

who have any generosity of sentiment, and who are not argu- 
ing merely as partisans, prepared to deny every thing and to 
assert any thing. But, simple as the answer is, it is surprising 
how many are influenced by the argument. 

But how explain the fact — it forms an important argument 
in the pages of Milner — that as we traverse our streets and 
ask for the Catholic churchy we are sure to be directed by every 
one to the Roman church ? 

I have been surprised at times at the confidence with which 
some — indeed many persons — have argued thus. And I have 
answered it by a parallel, saying : If any man, traversing our 
streets or wandering in the fields, ask for the churchy he will 
be sure to be directed to the Protestant church of the parish. 
This would be invariably the same. And thus I have argued, 
that if on asking for the Catholic church, one is directed to 
the Roman church, and this is to be held a proof that the 
Church of Rome is Catholic ; then the other fact, namely, that 
if, on inquiring for the church, one is ahYays directed to the 
Protestant church, it must as fairly be deemed a proof that 
the Church of England is the Church of Christ. The truth is, 
that such a process of reasoning on either side is trifling. 

The argument, however, that more than all else has. been 
urged upon me is, that the Church of Rome was universal, as 
the word " Catholic" implies — that she was universal through 
all past centuries and all present centuries, and is thus the 
Catholic or universal church. 

The answer I gave to this is as follows : 

The Church of Rome never was universal, and certainly is 
not now universal ; and every century sees her shorn of some 
of her provinces, so as that she is steadily and constantly los- 
ing her relative position. If ever, at any period of history, 
she had been universal, it is a certain fact that she is now less 
able to claim that epithet than at any former epoch. In the 
first place, she does not keep pace with the steady gro^vth of 
population ; inasmuch as the population of the old countries 
where she prevailed, as Italy, Spain, France, Austria, has not 
increased in the same proportion as those countries wherein 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 125 

Protestantism prevails, as in Prussia, England, and America. 
In the next place, the stream of emigration, at this moment 
extending population over the world, is mainly bearing on its 
surface the Anglo-Saxon institutions, principles, and rehgion, 
which will thus be broad-cast over the whole of the new world. 
America, India, Australia are illustrations of this. 

But we can say even more than this. Assuming her own 
statement as a basis of argument, namely, that the Church of 
Eome luas universal ; she must acknowledge and does ac- 
knowledge two great defalcations — two gigantic secessions 
from her pale — two bodies of such vast magnitude as that the 
total of such seceders or separatists is more numerous than all 
that have remained to her ; so that assuming that she once 
was universal, as she asserts, she can now make no claim what- 
ever to that title. The two great sections of the Christian 
family to which I here refer, are the Greek or Eastern 
Churches, and the Protestant or Western Churches. Russia, 
Turkey, Greece, and all Asia have rejected her claims and de- 
nied her authority ; Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, one 
half of Germany, with England and JN'orth America, have all 
rejected her authority. 

The Church of Rome pronounces the former to be a schis- 
matic separation ; and the latter to be a heretical secession. 
The former, at whatever date it may be supposed to have 
commenced, was certainly consummated in the fifteenth cen- 
tury : while the latter commenced in the sixteenth century, 
and is still extending its influence. All this is her own state- 
ment, and assuming all this to be true, the Church of Rome 
can no longer be regarded as universal. The total number of 
professing Christians in the world is, as accurately as can be 
estimated, 305,000,000. By the Eastern separation she has 
lost seventy-seven millions of souls, that being the estimated 
numbers of the Greek or Eastern Churches at the present day. 
By the Western secession she has lost ninety-five millions of 
souls, for such is the estimated number of the Protestants of 
Europe and America at present. By these two therefore com- 
bined, she has lost one hundred and seventy-two millions of 



126 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Christians, while she retains all over the world only one hurt- 
drcd and thirty-three millions within her pale. Even in the 
old countries of Europe, according to her own calculations, 
she is now in a very decided minority. By the last census 
taken in the several states of Europe, the whole population in 
1851 was 256,041,920 ; and accordiug to the last statement 
published, in behalf of the Church of Rome (published by 
Battersby, in 1851), she claims of these only 124,993,961, 
that is, less than one half! This is her own claim. It ought 
to have been only 117,000,000 on an accurate calculation. 
And thus, although as a single communion, she has a larger 
number of members than any other Church — yet, taking the 
wide field of Christendom as a whole — taking the professing 
family and visible church of Christ as a whole — she is, at this 
moment, in a very decided minority. And the jjrogress of 
events give significant augury that ere long, she shall have 
still less pretensions even to this fiction of a name, for every 
year she becomes still less " universal" or " Catholic." The 
wave is breaking upon her old embankments, and one by one 
they are shaken, sink down, and are engulfed and carried 
away forever. 

It is easy to imagine this claim in mediaeval times, when the 
Church of Rome was in the fullness of her meridian splendor 
aud power ; there was then no other church in Europe that 
could resist her efiectually. And yet in England, and in 
France, and in Spain, the struggle was maintained with a 
wonderful perseverance, and though stricken down, its cries 
stifled and its freedom chained, yet every now and then it 
shook off its oppressor — bravely struggled on for a little while, 
and then again sunk into the silence of its prison-house. 
Throughout those ages, the Church of Rome could lift her 
head hke the palm-tree, and boast herself that she stood alone 
in the world, not indeed the loving mother, but the powerful 
mistress of the other churches. But all this has passed away. 
In the East, and in the West, the national and particular 
churches of Christendom have at last risen in their strength 
and fulfilled their resurrection, and shivered to atoms the 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 127 

chains of their bondage, and rent the walls of their prison- 
house, so that now they are more numerous than their former 
oppressor. And, not content Avith their own emancipation, 
the Protestant churches are spoiling her of her prey, and the 
hundreds of converts in beautiful Italy, the thousands of down 
stricken Ireland, and the millions of free-hearted America, are 
given to the faithful, and loving, and ti'ue-hearted labors and 
prayers of the Protestant Churches, The universality or Cath- 
olicity of the Church of Rome is day by day becoming " fine 
by degrees and elegantly less," and is destined ere long to live 
only in the memories of the past. 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 

The Claim of the Church of Eome as Apostolical — ^Meaning of the Term — Founded 
by an Apostle or in Apostolic Times — Uselessness of this — The Fate of many 
such Churches — Conformity with the Teaching of Apostles — How this is Ascer- 
tainable — The Holy Scriptures — The Apostolical Succession — Claimed alike by 
all Churches — ^Succession in the Presbytery or in the Episcopacy. 

Among my Roman Catholic paiislii oners was a man, ad- 
vanced in life, who had married a Protestant much younger 
than himself. They lived very happily together, and had sev- 
eral children. As was very usual in such cases of mixed mar- 
riages, all the children were baptized by the Roman Catholic 
priest ; but after my speaking to them on the subject, they 
were all sent as scholars to my school, and as attendants at 
my church. 

I have always observed in the case of such mixed marriages 
that the children are professed as Roman Catholics, or as 
Protestants, according to the character of the Protestant cler- 
gyman of the parish. If he is careless, indifferent, inattentive 
then the natural feeling of the Roman Catholic parent, com- 
bined with the silent influence of the masses of the neighbor- 
ing population, at once consigns the children to the Church of 
Rome. There is no opposing influence to counteract this, un- 
less the Protestant clergyman influences the Protestant parent. 
On the other hand, if the Protestant clergyman is a good, and 
zealous, and attentive man — if he visits his people and enters 
into conversation ou their little fomily affairs, and shows an 
interest in their well-being, both for time and for eternity, he 
will obtain an influence ov^er the Roman Catholic parent, 

4* 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 129 

througli his interest taken in tlie cliildren, as well as give a 
moral support to the wishes of the Protestant parent. In such 
cases the children will be freely given to him by both parents. 
I have had large experience in this matter, and never knew 
an instance in which I did not secure the children of mixed 
marriages^ as pupils in the Protestant school, and attend- 
ants at the Protestant church. If there be a want of suc- 
cess in this matter, it is generally the fault of the clergyman 
himself. 

I have said that the wife of this Roman Catholic parishioner 
was a Protestant. She was such by birth and education ; but, 
as her husband usually attended the Roman Catholic service, 
she remained at home to mind the house and take charge of 
the children. Her inability thus to attend church w^as mani- 
fest, and although on my speaking to her husband on the sub- 
ject, he, as a sensible and reasonable man, was willing to do 
any thing that I could suggest with reason, yet the care of the 
little children placed a great obstacle in the way. I therefore 
said to him one day, that as his wife could not come to the 
church, so the church must come to his wife. I said I would 
come and pray, and read, and preach at his house. He most 
readily accepted my offer, and thus I was enabled to establish 
a cottage lecture on a small scale in his house, where several 
neighboring families, both Protestants and Romanists, regu- 
larly attended. 

One thing naturally led to another. The reading of the 
Scriptures, and my expositions of them, always extempora- 
neous as to the manner of delivery, and always directed to the 
great truths of the gospel, and to the necessity of a real and 
practical religiousness of life, led to many questions and an- 
swers, not only on matters of great Christian moment in gen- 
eral, but also on points more or less controverted between the 
churches. These questions came from Romanists and Prot- 
estants ahke. The man himself after some time seemed much 
drawn to the gospel, and sought private conversation with me. 
He showed a great depth of feehng at times. He was evidently 
thinking of leaving the Church of Rome. He saw that many 

6* 



130 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

others had openly done so, and he seemed not indisposed to 
follow their example. 

One day we conversed for a long time on the subject of the 
true Church, xlmong other points he spoke much about the 
apostolicity of the Church of Rome — that she was apostolical. 

I therefore asked him what he meant by the word, and 
what argument he drew from it ? 

He said that when he called the Church of Rome an apos- 
tohcal church, he meant that she was as old as the apostles — 
that she was founded in the days of the apostles — that she had 
received the gospel from the mouths of the apostles — and 
thus, having been founded by the blessed apostle Peter, the 
first bishop and pope of Rome, she must be an apostolical 
church. 

I asked him v/hat argument he meant to found on this ? I 
said that I was, in some measure, not disposed to deny it ; but 
wished to know what he intended to found on it.; 

He said it proved the Church of Rome to be old — an old 
church — the oldest of all churches. 

I then told him that if his argument w^as that the Church 
of Rome was an old church, I would at once admit it, for it 
was a very certain truth ; and that as founded by an apostle and 
in the days of the apostles, she may most truly be called an 
apostolical church. I told him that — 

In this sense w^e see no objection whatever to call the 
Church of Rome an apostolic church — she was founded in 
the days of the apostles, and probably by some of the apostles 
themselves. We may perhaps not believe w^hat she says 
about her being founded by Peter, and that he was her first 
bishop or pope, but we freely admit her to have been founded 
in the days of the apostles, for the fact is stated in the Holy 
Scriptures. But, I added, there are other churches equally 
apostohcal ; and, although she may claim this epithet in this 
sense, yet she can not claim it exclusively. If she is an apos- 
tolic church, she is only one among many, which are equally 
apostolical. We read in the Holy Scriptures of the Church at 
Jerusalem, of the Church at Antioch, of the churches of 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 131 

CorintL, of Galatia, Laodicea, Epiiesus ; of tlie Cliurches of 
Judea, Sainaria, Macedonia, Acliaia ; and all these are apos- 
tolical churches in this sense, for they are all founded by- 
apostles ; and ancient history records, that the gospel was 
preached in these islands in apostolic times, and as some his- 
torians state, even by the apostle Paul himself, so that we see 
no exclusive right to this appellation on the part of the 
Church of Rome. Nor, I continued, can she derive any pecu- 
liar advantage from it; for, as one of the Articles of the 
Church of England says, " As the Church of Jerusalem, Alex- 
andria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome 
hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, 
but also in matters of faith." Here are three of the apostol- 
ical churches : that of Jerusalem, founded by all the apostles, 
is now apostate and Mohammedan ; that of Antioch, founded 
by Peter, is now apostate and Mohammedan ; that of Alexan- 
dria, founded by Mark, is now apostate and Mohammedan, 
All the seven churches of Asia, all apostohcal as they were, 
are now separated as much as ourselves from the Churcb of 
Rome, so that I see not what the Churcb of Rome can gain 
by calling herself apostolical in this sense of having been 
founded by an apostle. It has not secured other apostolical 
churches from error like that of the Greek churches ; or 
from apostacy, hke that of the Asiatic churches. The Church 
of Rome acknowledges this herself. I do not know, therefore, 
what she gains by this argument. 

He saw this very clearly, and said, that he felt, and for a 
long time had felt, that for a church to be old and apostolical 
was a very good thing, but that it was not every thing ; and 
that all events it did not keep her from falling. The Church 
of Jerusalem, where the blessed Saviour himself taught and 
preached, and where St. Peter himself first preached on the 
day of Pentecost — was she not the first and oldest and most 
apostohcal of all churches ? And yet — God's holy will be 
done ! — it is now gone — gone ! He uttered this in a very 
impressive and solemn tone, and then added — It is plain, that 
the oldest and most apostolical churches may fall, Jerusaleni 



132 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

has fallen, Rome may fall, and why — he asked in a thought- 
ful way — Why is the church called apostolic in the creed ? 

I said, in reply to this, that whatever was the meaning and 
intention of the epithet, it was evident it could not mean or 
intend merely that a church was foui>ded by an apostle, or in 
the apostolic times ; because, if that was the meaning and 
intention, then there could be no true and apostohcal church, 
but those which were founded in the very earliest ages. Now 
America was unknovr^n — undiscovered in the apostolic times, 
and yet she has now many millions of souls living and dying 
in the true faith of Jesus Christ, and she has thus a true and 
apostolic church w^ithin her bosom, although not founded by 
the apostles, or in the apostolic times. The words in the creed 
must mean something else. 

He here broke in, saying, that there could be no doubt on 
that point, for that the Church of Ireland was not founded in 
the apostles' times. It w^as founded, he had read, by the 
blessed St. Patrick in the fourth century. All the apostles 
were dead and gone to glory, long before that time ; and 
therefore as you say of the Church of America, neither could 
the Church of Ireland be apostolical, if that w^as the meaning 
of the epithets in the creed. 

It was evident my old friend was well-pleased at his own 
cleverness, in adducing so very apt and appropriate an illus- 
tration, as the recent foundation of the Irish Church. And as 
I saw he fully understood my objection so far, I proceeded to 
state what seemed to me the true purport of the word in the 
creed. 

I reminded him that there was another and very different 
meaning for the word — that to say a church was scriptural, 
meant that its doctrines were in agreement with the Scriptures ; 
or to say that a church was Roman Catholic meant that its 
doctrines were in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church ; 
and in precisely the same way, when it is said that the church 
is apostolical, it is meant that its doctrines are in agreement 
with the doctrines of the apostles. 

He seemed fully to receive this, and be satisfied with it. 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 133 

I continued to say that we were to inquire — and it was the 
grand subject of enquiry — whether the Roman Churches, or 
the Protestant Churches, had most claim to be called apos- 
tolical in this sense. 

This — in order to a fair and candid inquiry — requires us 
first to determine the way in which such inquiry or examina- 
tion is to be ascertained. How are w^e to ascertain — ^how 
are we best to test the claims to be in accordance with the 
apostles ? 

It is by comparing the doctrine and discipline of the 
churches, whether Roman or Protestant, with the writings of 
the apostles. I argued thus : If we wish to ascertain the opin- 
ions of Luther and Melancthon and Zwinglius and Calvin, and 
the continental reformers of the 16th century, our most fair, 
candid and reasonable course will be, to open their writings, 
and learn thus from themselves their own opinions. This is 
infinitely better than to take them at second-hand. Again, if 
we desire to learn the judgment of Cranmer, and Latimer, and 
Ridley, and Hooper, and Jewell, and the other Reformers of 
England of the 16th century, is it not the true and only just 
and reasonable course to open their writings, and thus learn 
from themselves, not from second-hand sources,* but from them- 
selves, their own opinions. Again, if we want to ascertain the 
mind of the Nonconformists of the lYth century : of Baxter, 
and Howe, and Calamy, and Manton ; there seems to be no 
course so just, and fair, and right as going direct to their 
writings and so learning from themselves, and not at second- 
hand, the opinions they entertained. On the very same prin- 
ciple, I argued, that if our object be to learn the mind, the 
opinion, the doctrine and disciphne of the apostles, with the 
view to ascertain whether or not the doctrines and discipline 
of the church be in accordance with them — if our object be 
to ascertain whether the Church of Rome, or the Church of 
England — be apostolical, in this sense of the word, then we 
must, if we would be fair, and just, and reasonable, come to 
the writings of the apostles, and thus bring all to the test of 
the New Testament Scriptures. 



134 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

He remarked that tliat ^yollld bring it, in the end, to the 
Protestant principle of trying every thing by the Holy Scrip- 
tures ; and he added thoughtfully, that he was sure it was 
after all the right way. He paused, and after a few moments 
said, that he had read somewhere that the word " apostolical" 
sometimes meant the succession of the clergy of the church 
regularly and without break, hke the links of a chain so to 
speak, from the apostles to the present time ; that is, that 
every single clergyman was ordained by the laying-on of the 
hands of tbose who were previously ordained in the same 
way, and whose ordainers were themselves previously ordained 
in the same way by the laying on of hands. And that thus 
they could trace every one of the clergy regularly to the times 
of the apostles. He added, that among the priests of the 
Church of Rome, he had often heard this explanation — ^that 
he did not himself think much of it — but wished to know 
my opinion. His own opinion, he at once avowed, was, that 
every church should be tried by the Word of God — by the 
Holy Scriptures. 

To this I replied, that I fully agreed with him, that after 
all, the only safe and certain test or standard of truth was the 
Holy Scriptures ; and that the more they were read in faith, 
and prayer, and humility, the more men would be led to make 
them the only test or standard. This was the invariable re- 
sult with those who knew and loved them. 

He again asked me, what I thought of the succession from 
the apostles. 

I answered this by saying tbat every church in Christendom 
had this sort of succession from the apostles. In the Church 
of Rome, in the Churches of Greece, in the Protestant Churches, 
they all claim the same succession, that is, all their clergy are 
ordained by clergy who were themselves ordained before them ; 
and they ordained again by others before them, and so on to 
the times of the apostles. 

He stated that he had heard this before, especially of the 
Protestant Churches of England and Ireland. At the Reform- 
ation, the archbishops, and bishops, and priests, changed 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 135 

their doctrines, they were not changed themselves, that is, 
they were not turned out, and unordained men put in their 
places. . He had heard that the mass-book was turned out, 
and the common-prayer book was brought in, but that the 
clergy were not changed. They gave up Romanism, and they 
took up Protestantism. They changed their religion, but 
were not changed themselves. They did not resign their 
parishes. 

I stated, that such was the true view of the facts, for that 
Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, and Hooper, and the rest 
of them, were all archbishops, and bishops, and priests, be- 
longed to the Church of Rome, that is, held communion with 
her. And if they had the succession of orders from the apos- 
tles, before their conversion, they must have had it after their 
conversion. 

He then asked, whether the same vvas true of the Presby- 
terian ministers of the Church of Scotland, and of the Dis- 
senters of England and Ireland. Had they this succession ? 

Most certainly, was my reply. In the former country — 
Scotland — the Romish priests became Protestant ministers ; 
so that these Protestant ministers had this apostolic succes- 
sion as much after conversion as before ; and to this day they 
never recognize any man as an ordained minister, unless he 
has been ordained by others w^ho were themselves ordained 
ministers before them. And so too with the Dissenters or 
Nonconformists. Whenever any one of them is to be or- 
dained, there is a meeting of the congregation, and some older 
ministers attend ; and with prayer, those senior ministers, who 
were themselves so ordained before, lay hands, after the 
apostles' example, upon the young candidate, and thus set 
him apart for the sacred office of the ministry. They thus 
receive the outward ordination to the ministry from those who 
were ministers before them, and so on in successive genera- 
tions to the time of the Reformation, and so on to the age of 
the apostles. And thus this apostolical succession, of which 
the Church of Rome boasts so much, belongs to all the other 
churches likewise — is as much the privilege of all our Episco- 



IBB EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

palian and Presbyterian — of all our conforming and noncon- 
forming churclies, as of the Churcli of Rome. 

He seemed very much struck with this view of the subject. 
It was new to him ; and he said, that after all that men 
might say on the subject, it seemed to him that they must in 
the end come to the Holy Scriptures. He said that this kind 
of apostolicity could not serve the Church of Rome. If she did 
not give it up, he could not help it, for he felt he must give it 
up forever. 

I then took occasion to tell him, that the advocates of the 
Church of Rome were perfectly well aware of all this ; and 
that all the Protestant churches possessed this kind of apos- 
tolical succession as well as herself. And therefore, she has 
invented another kind of succession : she says that apostolical 
succession does not mean the regular succession of clergy in 
genera], but only the regular succession of bishops. 

And what arguments, he asked warmly, have they for that? 
At all events, you have bishops and a succession of bishops in 
the Church of England, but what proof have they for saying it 
is only a succession of bishops ? It is not with the bishops 
that we, the people, have to do ; it is with the priests that we 
are concerned. Have they any thing in the Holy Scriptures 
about succession of bishops any more than about succession 
of priests ? There was a dash of indignant feeling in his tone. 

I said that I never knew or heard any reason for this dis- 
tinction. St. Piiul speaks of Timothy as ha\dng been ordained 
" by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery," as well as his 
own. And that I believed that the true succession is in the 
Presbytery at large, and not in the Episcopacy alone. I then 
told him, that in the Church of England the ordination is con- 
ferred not by the bishop alone, but by him and by the Pres- 
bytery, that is, by the clergy present, who all, along with the 
bishop, lay their hands alike on the head of the candidate. 
The Church of England does not acknowledge the distinction, 
and she thus shows that she holds that the true apostolical 
succession is not in the bishops alone, but in the bishops and 
presbyters together. 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 137 

He tlianked me warmly for tliis, and showed that some 
little difficulties had been removed from his mind. He seemed 
more at his ease, as if he breathed more freely. He said that 
every thing went to show there was no sure or certain way of 
proving the true church but by the Holy Scriptures. That 
was the only true apostolicity. 

I took the opportunity of pressing this upon him. I also 
took a short review of our argument, reminding him it arose 
on the meaning of the words "Apostolical Church" in the 
creed ; — that it could not mean a church founded by apostles 
or in apostolic times, for that many other churches, as that of 
Jerusalem, founded by our Lord himself, and blessed with the 
presence, the miracles, the teaching, of St. Peter, and all the 
apostles, had fallen into apostasy and Mohammedanism ; — ^that 
it could not mean a succession in the ministry from apostolic 
days, for that belonged to every church, and w^as therefore not 
an exclusive mark of any — and that finally, it could only 
mean a church which held, believed, and loved, and practiced 
the doctrines and discipline of the apostles, as set forth in their 
own writings and sermons in the Holy Scriptures. 

We soon parted. I felt thankful that his manner showed a 
greater approximation to my opinions than on any former 
conversation. 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 

Confession of Sin to God — The Eomish Form of Confession — Scripture Texts on 
Confession — The Diiference between the two Churches — Confession only com- 
manded to God — ^Mutual Confession — Priestly Absolution proved Useless by a 
Dilemma — The Absolving and Forgiving Power involved in the "Words of our 
Lord — Matt, xviii. 13 ; John xx. 23 — This Power belongs to all Believers alike — 
The Power of Forgiveness defined — ^Explanation of the Allusion to the Levitical 
La^v^ in the Words of our Lord — Objection to the Eomish Doctrine as Inconsist- 
ent with Divine Justice — With Social Morality — ^Note. on the Form of Absolu- 

• tion in the Church of England. 

I WAS Speaking one day, in the cottage of one of my peo- 
ple, on tlie duty of confessing our sins to God, There were 
several present, and among them three or four members of 
the Church of Eome. I had no thought of them particularly 
while speaking on the subject, my object w^as to show that if 
we are deeply impressed with a sense of our sinfulness, we 
shall be very lovvdy and humble, and shall think very lovrdy 
and humbly of ourselves ; and at times hate and loathe our- 
selves, at the memory of our sins ; — that then the Christian 
will go before his God and Saviour, and confess his sinfulness 
and ask for pardon from him against whom he has sinned, 
and who alone can forgive. While enlarging on this, I press- 
ed on my hearers that humiliation and repentance were in- 
separable from a real Christianity ; and that a confession of 
sin to God was inseparable from these. I referred to the 
beautiful and touching confession in the Pi'ophet Daniel, ix. 
3-19, as an illustration of what such a humiliation and con- 
fession ought to be. And I pressed also on them, that there 
was a comfort and a blessedness, and a SAveet peace for the heart, 
when the man thus pours out Iiis whole soul unreservedly before 
his God, unburdening and unbosoming himself to Ilim " whoso 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 139 

eyes are over the rigliteous, and whose ears are open to their 
prayers ;" thus seeking the sympathy and looking for the for- 
giveness of his God. There is an inexpressible happiness in 
thus pouring out one's soul before Him, in the confession of 
sin, and in the prayer for forgiveness, and then experiencing 
the peace and joy that, in answer to prayer, is breathed into 
the soul of the believer ; it steals into the heart hke dew upon 
the tender grass, and there is peace and happiness more beau- 
tiful in the spiritual eye than even the sparkling and brilliancy 
of the dew upon the herb. The heart rejoices, and sees beau- 
ty, and love, and happiness in every thing. 

After I had thus expressed myself, without any allusion to 
any particular church, one of the Roman Catholics present 
said, that they were in the habit of making this confession to 
the priest and receiving his absolution. And that they ex- 
perienced thus the peace and happiness of having their sins 
forgiven. 

This led to a short conversation on the form called " Tlie 
Confiteor," which he repeated, as usually said at the confes- 
sional. It runs thus : " I confess to Almighty God, to the 
blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, 
to blessed John Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, 
to all the saints, and to you, father, that I have sinned exceed- 
ingly, in thonght, word, and deed, through my fault, through 
my fault, through my most grievous fault. [The person then 
specifies his several sins in their details, and concludes] — there- 
fore, I beseech the blessed Mary ever Virgin, the blessed 
Michael the Archangel, blessed John Baptist, the holy Apos- 
tles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, and you, father, to pray 
to our Lord God for me." He added, that when the confes- 
sion was made in this form, it was said to be under the seal of 
confession, and must not he disclosed by the priest ; but that 
if made without this form, the priest was not bound to keep it 
secret ; and therefore every one learned this form so as to se- 
cure the secrecy of his confession ; so that a Roman Catholic 
had not only the advantage of having his sins forgiven, but 
also of having them kept secret forever. 



140 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

I said, that there was something else in that form of still 
more importance. It contained a confession of sin to God and 
to the saints alike, as if there was no difference between them, 
and as if the sin was as much against one as the other ! And 
then there is a prayer to the saints — not to God, but Giily to 
the saints, to pray to God for the penitent ! But still more 
than all, I added, there is no prayer to God, neither to the 
Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit — there is no mention of 
the blessed name of Jesus Christ, through whom alone we can 
have forgiveness ; and there is no allusion to the Holy Spirit, 
through whom alone we can be made holy ; and no cry to 
him for repentance, no prayer for forgiveness, no desire for 
sanctification ! There is the absence of all that is distinctive 
of true Chiistianity. I added, that all this omission seems 
designed to draw away the minds of the people from Jesus 
Christ and the Holy Spirit, in order to lead them to think only 
of the priest, and to confess only to him, and to look only to 
him for forgiveness. It seemed to do this effectually; but 
alas, it leads them to forget Christ. 

This remark was felt — deeply felt by some present ; and it 
led to some very serious conversation. But we soon separated, 
not however, till it was arranged that on an appointed even- 
ing they should come again with some other of their friends 
to speak more fully on the subject. 

In the course of some few days we met again ; our party 
might now consist of some sixteen or eighteen persons, 
of whom the larger portion were members of the Church of 
Rome. 

The conversation commenced, by one of them asking me, 
why the Protestants did not practice confession. He said that 
every man was a sinner, and therefore had sins to confess — 
that he thereby received forgiveness and consolation — that the 
Church of Rome had therefore ordained that every one should 
confess his sins, at least once a year ; that she did this in ac- 
cordance with the Holy Scriptures, which expressly command- 
ed the practice of confession, as where it is said, " Confess your 
sins one to another" — James v. 16. And as was practiced in 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 141 

the presence of John tlie BaiDtist, as we read, " They were 
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." — Matt. iii. G. 
And again, before St. Paul, as we read, " Many that believed, 
came, and confessed, and showed their deeds." — Acts xix. 18. 
There was confession in the Holy Scriptures, and yet Protes- 
tants never practice it. 

I stated that he was altogether under a mistake in suppos- 
ing that Protestants do not confess ; for myself I said, that I 
would not for all this world could give, forego the privilege 
of confessing my sins — that day by day, and night by night, 
publicly and privately it was my practice — that I believed and 
knew it was the practice of every religious Protestant ; and 
that no truly pious person would omit it. But — for I saw the 
surprise experienced by many at the statement — I added, there 
was no difference whatever, between the two churches, as to 
the duty of confession, the difference was as to the person to 
whom the confession was to be made ; Romanists confessing 
to THE PRIEST while Protestants confess to God. There is the 
true difference between us. 

I perceived that this was fully recognized, and being un- 
willing that our conversation should be merely controversial, 
I went on to say, that the Christian ever found a comfort, and 
a blessedness, and a peace in coming to his God, and in deep 
humihation and sincere penitence, confessing his sins, and 
praying for mercy, pardon and grace. It was only the man 
who had tried and experienced it, could believe the blessed 
comfort, and the inward peace that he enjoyed, who could re- 
tire to his inmost chamber, and there, where there was no eye 
to see his tears, but His who seeth in secret, and no ear to 
hear his words, but His whose ears are open to the prayers 
of his people — there unbosoming himself, unburdening his 
aching, bursting heart, pouring out as it were, his whole soul, 
with all its sin, and sorrow, and shame, and there watching 
and waiting till, so to speak, he feels the blood-drops of the 
crucified Saviour fall upon the prostrate penitent, and touch his 
soul. It seems to come soft as the dew of heaven, to soothe and 
refresh his crushed and bruised spirits. It is only such a man 



142 EVENIis'GS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that really knows the comfort and blessedness of confession to 
his God, and he who does know it, will never forego such a 
well-spring and fountain of peace, for all the happiness the 
world can give. 

All this was fully assented to, and there were some who 
seemed to feel as if it was true ; but it was remarked that 
while a man ought to confess his sins to his God, he ought 
also to confess them to his priest, who was authorized by the 
Almighty to hear the confession and to give the absolution, so 
that the question was again asked — wdiy the Protestants did 
not practice confession to the priest ? 

I answered this inquiry by saying as before, that the precise 
difference between the churches, was, that one made confession 
to God, and the other to the priest — that the clear and ex- 
press language of the Holy Scripture always enjoined the 
foimer, and supplied no instance of the latter. To substantiate 
■this statement, I referred to the following texts : 

" And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, 
glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto 
him ; and tell me now w^hat thou hast done ; hide it not fi'om 
me." — Joshua vii. 19. 

" And Hezekiah spake comfortably unto all the Levites that 
taught the good knowledge of the Lord : and ihej did eat 
throughout the feast seven days, ofiering peace-offerings, and 
making confessions to the Lord God of their fathers." — 2 
Chron. xxx. 22. 

" And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them. Ye 
have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase 
the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto 
the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure." — Ezra x. 
10,11. 

"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have 
I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the 
Lord ; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." — Psalm 
xxxii. 5. 

" And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my con- 
fession, and said, Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping 



CONFESSION AND .ABSOLUTION. 143 

the covenant and mercy to tliem timt love liim, and to them 
tha-t keep liis commandments." — Dan. ix. 4. 

" If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and 
the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful 
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all un- 
righteousness." — 1 John i. 8, 9. 

In each of these places, we have either a command to make 
our confession to God, or an encouragement to do so, or an 
example of it. They are j)lain and clear texts, which every 
one can understand. And they are thus an illustration of the 
Protestant practice, of confessing only to God. They are also 
a justification of our practice, while at the same time, there is 
not a single command in the Holy Scriptures to justify con- 
fession to a PRIEST, nor a single example to illustrate it. 
Auricular Confession, that is, a private and secret confession 
to the alone ear of a priest, is a thing unknown in the Holy 
Scriptures. 

Many eyes were now directed to our friend, who had asked 
the question, and they seemed to feel that my arguments re- 
quired an answer. There was a pause of some moments, and 
it would have continued, if it had not been broken by one of 
those whose love of the ludicrous, so common, and indeed 
national, could not restrain itself. With an arch eye, and a 
look intensely droll, he suggested to him in half a whisjDer, the 
example of Judas, who, having betrayed his Saviour, returned 
to the priests, and confessed it ! The drollery of making 
Judas the example to be followed, acted like magic on a second 
of the party present, who suggested in the same undertone, 
that Judas knew his duty well, for he brought the money to 
the priest, when he made his confession ! 

These sallies, however unfitting the subject, are irrepressible 
among the Irish, even upon the most solemn subject. So ap- 
pearing not to hear what had passed, I remarked that the places 
usually cited by Roman Catholics in favor of confession to the 
priest, had no reference whatever to it. The text, " Confess 
your faults one to another, and pray one for another," only 
taught % mutual confession ; — that where we have sinned 



144 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

against God or against our fellows, we should not secretly or 
proudly conceal it, or deny it, but mutually confess it ; — we 
should frankly and openly as Christian brethren, confess it one 
to another. It is not that we are to confess our faults to the 
priest alone^ but " one to another ;" so that if we confess to the 
priests, they should confess to us in return. The simple words 
of the text, show that it is a mutual confession, and not a con- 
fession to the priest alone. It is a brotherly confession, and 
has nothing sacerdotal in it. If, I added, these words proN^e 
that any among you should confess to the priest, they also 
prove that the priest should confess to you in return. The 
words are, " Confess your faults one to another." They com- 
mand two things — confession and prayer, and both are desired 
to be mutual. It is neither prayer for the priest alone, nor 
confession to the priest alone. It is mutual prayer and mutual 
confession. 

This answer was sufficient, and the general feeling exhibited 
among all present, was that of satisfaction at the answer, so far 
as this particular text is concerned. Instead of caviling or 
questioning, they acknowledged that I had given the fair 
meaning of the words. And one remarked with the general 
approval, or at least assent of the others, that the words " pray 
one for another," did not mean " pray for the priest alone ;" 
but that we were to pray for the priest, and the priest was to 
pray for us. It was mutual prayer — prayer for one another. 
And in the same way, he added, " Confess your sins one to 
another," must mean that both priest and layman are to con- 
fess or acknowledge one to another their many sins.* 

* The other two texts are seldom much dwelt on, by candid Eo- 
man Catholics ; indeed ihey present no real difficulty. The place in 
Matt. iii. 6, simply states that the parties came openly and publicly 
to John the Baptist, and that he baptized them openly and publicly; 
and when they are said to confess their sins, it was evidently as openly 
and publicly as their coming to him and being baptized by him. It 
could not, at least, be a sacerdotal confession, inasmuch as the Baptist 
was neither a Jewish Priest nor a Christian Priest. And the same re- 
mark explains the place in Acts xix. 18. It was the operand public 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 145 

But while the question thus far seemed inclining in my 
favor, I felt that the great struggle upon which my opponents 
relied, was still in reserve — that we had been thus far only 
skirmishing as with small arms, while the heavy artillery on 
which they most depended was still to come into action. And 
I therefore prepared myself for what was at hand — namely, 
the argument for auricular confession derived from the power 
of absolution. My expectation was deferred for a few moments, 
as one of the party urged the following argument : 

It is found by experience, he said, that the practice of con- 
fessing to a priest is good, and although it certainly can not 
be well proved from Holy Scripture, certainly not from the 
words in St. James, yet the practice is very good in itself, and 
prevents many a man from falling into sin. When a man — 
or woman either — knows he must go to confession — that 
sooner or later he must tell his sin to his clergy — that though 
he, perhaps, may be able to hide it from every one else, yet 
he can not keep it a secret from his priest, he must tell him all 
shame — when a man knows this, it many times frightens him 
beforehand, and prevents his committing th^ sin. The fear 
of the priest prevents him. Now, he added, that is the way 
with Roman Catholics : but the Protestants have no such fear 
of the clergy, because they have no confession. 

This objection had often before been pressed upon me, and 
therefore I was the more prepared with my answer. I stated 
that the argument was very characteristic of the difference 
between the two churches. It spoke of the fear of a priest — 
of the fear of man — of the fear of a fellow-mortal and fellow- 
sinner. It spoke of men and women being deterred from sin 
by this fear. But it said nothing of the fear of God, and our 
Lord has said, " Fear not him that can kill the body — but fear 

acknowledgment of their former evil lives and sinful deeds. It was 
the act of men who were convinced of their sins, and openly and 
publicly confessed it ; and showed the sincerity of their conversion, by 
openly and publicly surrendering their bad books, and burning them 
before all. There is nothing of Auricular Confession — nothing of Sac- 
erdotal Confession in it. 

7 



146 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Him tliat can cast both body and soul into hell, yea, I say unto 
you, fear Him." Xow wliile this abstaining from sin merely 
through fear of man is veiy characteiistic of the Church of 
Eome, it is far otherwise with Protestants. We feel that 
however secret our sin — however unknown to the world — 
however done in our secret chamber — howev^er buried in our 
own bosom, yet is it known to an all-seeing God, and will yet 
be made known by Him before an assembled universe. We 
may do it " in the secret chamber,'' but He will proclaim it 
" on the housetop." The mere fear of man is nothing with us, 
in comparison with this. The difference between us, is, that 
Komanists abstain from sin through fear of the priest^ while 
the Protestant forbears through fear of God, The difference 
is a very wide one, and however painful to contemplate — and 
however unwilling I might be to express it — yet it has been 
necessitated by its being made an argument in favor of con- 
fession to a priest. Confession to a priest leads to a fear of 
the priests — confession to God leads to the fear and the love 
of God. 

I do not know what effect this might have had on my 
hearers, but I had often before observed that the contrast acted 
favorably for our Protestantism upon minds religiously dis- 
posed among the Roman Catholics. And as there was a 
pause — a momentary silence, I added, that if the argument in 
favor of confession to a priest, was that the fear of being 
obliged to reveal all to him, actually deterred from the com- 
mission of the sin, then confession to a sheriff or to a magis- 
trate, or to a hangman, if commanded and enforced in the 
same way, would serve the purpose of frightening from sin, as 
well as confession to a priest. This I felt was but a poor and 
miserable motive against sin, it was but a ghastly specter — a 
superstition to frighten children, or gro^svu persons as weak 
and mindless as children. There is no restraint upon sin 
worth the name, except the love of God, impelling us to do all 
things to please Him ; and a reverence of God, that leads us 
to avoid all that is displeasing in His sight. These are the 
motives that God himself presents to His intelligent creatures, 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 147 

and a mere fear of man is imwortlij of us, either as men or as 
Christians. 

It was immediately stated that besides the fear of being 
obliged to reveal all the sin with its shame, and its aggrava- 
tions, there was another feeling. It was the wish for forgive- 
ness, that more than every thing else led to confession. The 
priest had authority from the Great God to give absolution of 
sin, and so long as he had that power the poor sinner would 
come to him and seek absolution. And this, of course he can 
not have, unless he has first made a full confession of all his 
sins. He must confess his sins. He must repent of them. 
And then the priest can forgive him. 

I took up his words " he must repent of them," and repeated 
them slowly, so as to fix the attention of all, and then asked, 
whether this repentance Avas necessary in order to absolution 
— whether this repentance vv^as necessary in order that the 
absolution of the priest might be eiiectual. 

It was of course necessary, was the reply, for there can be 
no forgiveness without repentance. 

Is then, I asked, this repentance so necessary that the 
absolution is null and void without it ? 

Assuredly so, it was answ^ered : If the man does not repent, 
the priest can not forgive, his absolution is w^orthless. 

Then, I answered, the uselessness of the system of the 
Church of Rome is sulBSciently evident, for you acknowledge 
that if the man, who confesses to the priest, has not repented 
of his sins, he is not forgiven, and can not be forgiven 
by the priest, no matter whether the priest pronounces the 
absolution or not. If the man has not repented, the priest 
has no power or authority to forgive. His absolution is null 
and void ! Now, I added, there is another case to consider — 
if the man has repented of his sins, he does not want the for- 
giveness of the priest, because he has already received the for- 
giveness of Jesus Christ! I then laid down broadly what I 
knew would be fully and freely admitted, that the promise of 
forgiveness of sins was made by Jesus Cly:"ist to all who 
repented — that the Apostle Peter said, " Repent and be con- 



148 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

verted, tliat your sins may be blotted out." — Acts, iii. 19. 
When a man Las repented of his sins, he forthwith has the 
forgiveness of Jesus Christ : and having this, he has no need 
of the forgiveness of the priest. 

There could be no doubt or mistake as to the effect which 
this mode of treating the question, had upon the minds of 
those present. It was unmistakable : indeed I have never 
known the argument pressed on the minds of the Koman 
Catholics, without considerable effect following. They invari- 
ably feel it, and although, unhappily, they sometimes regard 
it as a mere perplexing difficulty, which they can not answer 
or overcome, yet they always feel its power, and not unfre- 
quently it has detached them altogether from the notion of a 
sacerdotal forgiveness of sins. On the present occasion, my 
object was to force it on their consideration, and I asked : — 

Is it not true — is it not the doctrine of the Church of Rome 
herself, that if the man has not repented, the priest can not 
forgive him, and his absolution is consequently useless ? 

It is certainly true, was the reply frankly given. 

Is it not also true, I continued — is it not also the doctrine 
of the Church of Rome, that if the man has repented of his 
sins, Jesus Christ has forgiven them ? — so that he has thus 
the forgiveness of Jesus Christ already, and does not w^ant the 
forgiveness of the priest. It is useless. 

To this there was no reply, so that I asked — ^whether I was 
clearly understood. 

The answ^er given w'as clear and decisive. It was to the 
effect that my argument was that the absolution of the priest 
was useless — that if the man repented not, the pardon of the 
priest was useless, as it could do nothing ; and that if the 
man had indeed repented, the pardon of the priest was also 
useless, because the man had already the pardon of Jesus 
Christ; — that in either case the pardon of the clergy was 
useless. 

I said quietly that my argument was rightly understood, 
and I asked for an answer. It was frankly said in return, that 
they could not answer it. 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 149 

For some moments more the conversation continued on 
this point, and then turned to another subject altogether. It 
was the most difficult and important of all. 

It was this — that our Lord Jesus Christ gave to His apostles 
the power of forgiving or retaining sins — that these apostles 
were succeeded in this power by the bishops, as their success- 
ors in the Church — that these bishops impart or delegate 
this power to the priests of the Church — that as the priests 
receive thus the power to forgive or retain sins, it is necessary 
that all persons should confess such sins to the priests before 
they can impart the forgiveness, as they can not forgive the 
sins till they know them. And all this was founded on — 
" Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever ye bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." — Matt, xviii. 18. And — " Whose- 
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose- 
soever sins ye retain, they are retained." — John, xx. 23. 

My answ^er to this was at some length. I can not undertake 
to give more than an abstract of it. It may startle many. 
It may be new to more. But believing most sacredly that it 
is the true solution of this difficult question, I may feel fear 
and trembling as to my powder of developing my views, but 
I have the most unbounded confidence in their truth. 

The first question — and a most natural one it is — is as to 
the persons to whom these words were spoken. 

Were they addressed to the a2oostles alone^ either as Christians, 
specially favored ; or, as men representing their successors in 
the episcopacy or in the priesthood or in the ministry of the 
Church ? 

Or — Were they addressed to the apostles and others — not 
to the apostles alone but with others^ apostles and other lay 
disciples, not as representing the clergy alone, but as repre- 
senting both the clergy and laity ^ in short, the whole Church 
or body of His believing people ? 

It is apparent that the whole inquiry as to the power of 
binding and loosing, of forgiving or retaining sin, depends on 
the solution of this question ; for if the words of our Lord 



150 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

were addressed to the apostles alone ^ as representing the minis- 
try of tlie Church, then there is some ground for confining 
this power, whatever it be, to the ministry. But if, on the 
other hand, our Lord addressed these words to lay disciples, 
as well as to the twelve apostles, then it Avill be clear that this 
power belongs to the whole body of the Church — as much to 
the laity as to the priesthood. 

This consideration greatly narroAvs our inquiry, and lessens 
the difficulty, as it avoids all the mists and clouds which the 
dust of human learning has gathered and thickened around 
the subject to obscure and darken it. 

Our first inquiry therefore is, as to the persons to whom the 
words in Matt, xviii. 18, are addressed. 

The chapter opens with the statement that while our Lord 
v/as speaking to Peter and others on the subject of miracles 
and paying tribute, other disciples came to him. " At the 
same time came the discip)les unto Jesus, saying, Who is 
greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And Jesus called a little 
child unto him, and set him in the midst, and said," etc. 
These words plainly imply that there were other persons 
beside the tv/elve apostles present. Indeed, in reference to 
some others, his weak disciples present, he says, at verse 10, 
" Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones ;" and 
again, at verse 14 — "It is not the will of your Father that 
one of these little ones should perish." This language implies, 
that besides the apostles there were others present, who were 
as children in the knowledge of Christ. And beside this con- 
sideration, it is to be observed that the word is not "Apostles," 
but " Disciples." [And although these words are sometimes 
convertible terms, yet they certainly are not always nor gene- 
rally so. In John, xxi. 1, there are some named as disciples, 
as ISTathanael of Galilee, who were not apostles. And in Acts 
i. 15, the disciples are said to have been one hundred and 
twenty in number, and among the number were women, upon 
whom, as the "daughters" and "handmaids" of the Lord, 
the Spirit descended, as well as on the twelve apostles, Acts, 
ii. 17.] And thus it is to the disciples, in the extended sense, 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 151 

that tlie words of our Lord in this chapter are addressed. 
This is the more apparent when we consider the solemn words 
on the subject of offenses, the offending hand, or foot, o$ eye 
— a subject that runs from the sixth to the tenth verses, and 
that certainly was not designed for the twelve apostles alone, 
but for all the disciples of Christ. And so too, in all his 
words, from the eleventh to the fourteenth verses, where he 
speaks of his sheep that had gone astray, and of himself as 
the true and loving Shepherd, that sought them and found 
them, and rejoiced over them. In like manner, all that 
remarkable discourse, from the fifteenth to the seventeenth 
verse, in which he teaches every Christian how he is to act in 
reference to his offending brother. It can not possibly be sup- 
posed to mean how the twelve apostles were to act toward 
each other, but how all loving Christians — all his disciples 
were to act. And again, when at the nineteenth verse, he 
promises his presence among any tvvo or three v/ho assemble 
together in his name, such promise is assuredly designed, not 
merely for the twelve apostles, but for the encouragement and 
the comfort of all his faithful people. And then, when from 
the twenty-first verse to the conclusion of the chapter, our 
Lord unfolds the forgiving spirit of the Christian, and enforces 
his precept by reference to his own forgiving love ; it is im- 
possible to reflect even for a moment, without the conviction 
that all is addressed to and designed for his disciples generally, 
and not merely for the twelve apostles alone. 

This being the character of the whole chapter in all its de- 
tails, it is altogether inconsistent wdth all right canons of inter- 
pretation, to select one verse out of the thirty-five — to select 
one verse, the eighteenth, and assert that it is addressed, not 
to the disciples generally, but to the twelve apostles alone. 
From the^ fifteenth verse to the end of the chapter, our Lord 
is speaking of the offenses and trespasses of Christians against 
one another, and their duty to forgive one another. And it 
is in the midst of this he utters the remarkable words — 
"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 



152 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

loosed in heaven," — words addressed not to the twelve apos- 
tles alone, but to his disciples in general. All right reasoning 
and* all just exposition alike demand that these words be re- 
garded as conveying no peculiar or exclusive power to the 
clergy alone, but that only which belongs in common to all 
the people of Christ. 

This consideration at once removes these words, Matt, xviii. 
18, from the category of those supposed to confer exclusively 
on the priesthood the power of absolution or forgiveness. 
They confer the same power upon the laity. It is not a sacer- 
dotal but a Christian forgiveness. And addressed, as they 
are, to all the people of Christ, they convey the promise, that 
if we, acting in the loving and forgiving spirit of Christ, shall 
forgive any who sin against us, that forgiveness shall assur- 
edly be ratified in heaven. If we forgive, He also will forgive. 
And this is our grand encouragement to forgive ; for that 
forgiveness will be ratified above. 

The same process of reasoning leads to the same results in 
reference to the other place where these remarkable words 
occur, in John, xx. 23. 

The inquiry here is — whether these words were addressed 
to the Apostles alone^ and through them to the priesthood of 
the Church — or, whether they were addressed to the apostles 
with other disciples^ and so to the whole body of the faithful 
in Christ, 

This inquiry finds its solution by reference to the parallel 
narrative of the same transaction in the Gospel of St. Luke, 
chapter xxiv. 

It appears from the first verse that our Lord arose on the 
first day of the week. " Now upon the first day of the week, 
very early in the morning." It also appears from the next 
verse, that those who first visited the sepulcher came, and, as 
is said at verse 9, " told all these things unto the eleven and 
TO ALL THE REST." [Note, that tlicsc words imply the assem- 
bling of some others with the apostles.] It next appears, from 
the thirteenth verse, that it was this same day that our Lord 
met the two disciples at Emmaus — " two of them went that 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 153 

same day to a village called Emmaus." Of these, one 'at least, 
whose name was Cleopas, verse 18, was not an apostle. And 
these the very same day, as the evening drew on, returned to 
the eleven apostles at Jerusalem. This is stated at verse 33 — 
" They rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and 
found the eleven gathered together, and them that were 
WITH THEM, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath ap- 
peared unto Simon. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself 
stood in the midst of them, and said, Peace be unto you — 
behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself ; handle me 
and see." 

From this it is evident, that on that solemn occasion when 
our Lord appeared among his disciples, on the very evening 
of the day of his resurrection, when he spoke the blessed 
words, " Peace be unto you ;" and when he showed them his 
hands and his feet in proof of his identity, and that he was 
not merely a spirit — that on that solemn occasion there were 
present not only the apostles, but also the disciples of Em- 
maus, and others besides. The expression is decisive — " They 
found the eleven gathered together, and them that were 
wrrH them," — an expression very similar to that of verse 9, 
" to the eleven, and to all the rest." So that there can be 
no doubt of there being present on that occasion several 
Christians, who were not of the number of the apostles, prob- 
ably a large number, possibly the 120 we read of in Acts, i. 
15. Now there is nothing in sacred history more certain 
than that it was on this very occasion, and to this mixed 
assembly^ that our Lord addressed the remarkable words — 
" Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven, and whose- 
soever sins ye retain, they are retained." Thereby conferring 
this power, whatever it be, not only on the twelve apostles, as 
representing the priesthood of the Church, but also on all his 
other faithful disciples then present ; not only to all " the 
eleven," but to " them that were with them," and " all the 
rest." This appears, beyond all doubt or question, by refer- 
ence to the gospel of John, who describes the resurrection as 
having taken place on the first day of the week ; and then 



154 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

descriBes the appearing of our Lord in the evening of that 
same dav, verse 1 9, to his " disciples," using the very words 
detailed by Luke, " Peace be unto you ;" and in the same 
way sho^^■ing his hands and feet. • " Then the same day at 
evening, being the first day of the vreek, when the doors were 
shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, 
cr.me Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them. 
Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed 
unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples 
glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them 
again. Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent me, even 
so send I you. And when he liad said this, he breathed on 
them, and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; 
and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." — John, xx. 
19 — 23. The conclusion from this is incontestable ; namely, 
that these words were addressed, not exclusively to the twelve 
apostles, as representing the priesthood of the Church, or as 
giving to them any peculiar or exclusive power over their 
fellow-sinners of the laity, but to all other disciples or believ- 
ers then present ; thus conferring upon all, apostles and disci- 
ples alike — on clergy and laity alike — the very same power or 
privilege — whatever it may be: — granting it to all alike. 

This consideration removes this text, like the former one, 
from the category of those which are supposed to confer ex- 
clusively on the priesthood the power of forgiving and retain- 
ing sins. Whatever that power may be, it clearly belongs to 
the disciples as much as to the apostles — to the laity as to 

the CLERGY. 

The argument which I found upon all this is, that seeing 
the two places wherein these words of our Lord occur, name- 
ly. Matt xviii. 18, and John, xx. 24, describe those words as 
addressed to the body of the laity as much as to the body of 
the clergy, in fact to the whole family of disciples or Church 
of Christ ; so they do not confer any peculiar power or ex- 
clusive privilege on the clergy as distinct from the laity. The 
apostles were present, and so may be thought to represent the 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 155 

clergy. Tlie laity were present, and so may be supposed to 
represent the laity. And these remarkable words being ad- 
dressed to all alike, can not, on any right rules of interpreta- 
tion, be ascribed peculiarly or exclusively to either. They 
belong to the whole Church or body of the faithful. 

There is no answer — and there can be no answer — to this, 
except that which objects that it is impossible, or at least im- 
probable, that the power of absolution or forgiveness should bo 
ceded to the laity — that it is essentially a priestly or clerical 
function, and can not, from its nature, belong to the body of 
the faithful. 

The reply to this is obvious, at least, it has ever seemed to 
me to be obvious, and I have, therefore, always given it in an- 
swer to this objection. My reply is, that this notion of absolu- 
tion and forgiveness being a priestly act, and one of which the 
laity are incapable, is nothing else than a mere prejudice — a 
prejudice which has no warrant whatever from the Holy 
Scriptures — a prejudice which has originated in and been sus- 
tained by the Church of Rome ; and which, in the darkness 
and superstition and priestcraft of the middle ages, had be- 
come infused in all the religious notions and theological books 
for centuries, and which was not clearly seen as such, and 
cast out of the Church, at the Reformation. It has thus been 
mistakenly fostered among us, and has been the cause of 
weakness, and sadness, and trouble, and perplexity among us, 
drawing some of our holiest minds in the direction of dissent, 
and leading some of our most argumentative minds in the 
direction of Romanism. The ax should be laid at its root, to 
cut it down as cumbering the ground. The truth should be 
stated broadly. The power of binding and loosing — the 
power of absolving and retaining — belongs to the laymen as 
fully as to the priest. It was ceded by Jesus Christ to all his 
disciples, to all his faithful ones ; in other words, to all his 
Church, composed, as it is, of clergy and laity. And this 
power belongs not exclusively to either, but equally to both. 

It is here, however, the question occurs as to what may 
be the real meaning of these remarkable words of our Lord, 



156 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and what is the real range and extent of the power they in- 
volve. 

The answer to this question must necessarily be such an in- 
terpretation of the words as will be applicable to the laity as 
well as to the clergy ; and such a description of a power as be- 
longs to the one as well as to the other. 

There seem three kinds of forgiveness. 

I. The first is that of a man who forgives, as he has the un- 
doubted right, the offenses or injuries of his fellow man against 
himself. Every man, whether cleric or lay, possesses this 
power. 

II. The next is where an offense or wrong is done to a body 
of men, as a congregation or church ; then it is clear that such 
body can forgive the offense or wrong against itself. And in 
such case the body may delegate one or more of its number to 
communicate that forgiveness, or to give that forgiveness in 
its name. The minister or ministers of the body are very fit- 
ting persons to be invested with this delegated authority, and 
thus may absolve offenders in the name of the whole body of 
the church ; but it is clear that, in this case, they do it as the 
representatives of the laity ^ and not as the delegates of God, 
Their power or authority is from the church and not from 
God, 

III. There is another way in which a man may be said to 
forgive ; — namely, when he declares and pronounces the for- 
giveness of another ; as when he proclaims the forgiveness of 
God to the repentant sinner. It is clear that this can be done 
by either clergyman or layman. But it is equally clear that 
the former is authorized and the other not — that the clergy- 
man is especially appointed, charged, commissioned to pro- 
claim the forgiveness in such a way as the layman can not do. 
The criminal under sentence of death may be pardoned by 
his gracious sovereign. Any man w^ho has access to the crim- 
inal may inform him of this, but the sheriff alone is the official 
authorized to do so, and therefore it is only his announcement 
that satifies the criminal. And so in the proclamation of the 
gospel ; any man may proclaim it to the sinner. The minister 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 157 

of God is appointed especially to do so. The fonner is un- 
authorized. The latter speaks authoritatively. In either case 
it is God alone who forgives, and his minister only declares 
and pronounces it. 

This gives us a key to the full understanding of the words 
of our Lord. They are taken from the forms of the Levitical 
law. By that law, in reference to leprosy, [and leprosy under 
the law was a type of sin under the gospel,] there was an 
authority given to the priest to examine every infected per- 
son. And when he found him infected, he had authority to 
pronounce him unclean, that is, diseased, and immediately 
had him " shut up" or " bound," that so he might not mingle 
in the congregation. After a little space the priest was to see 
him again ; and if the leprosy was gone, he was to pronounce 
him clean, that is, healthy, and so " absolve" or " loose" the 
man, permitting him again to mingle with the people. This 
is the allusion in the words of our Lord. He gives the power 
of binding and loosing — forgiving and retaining sins. It is 
clear — as clear as if written with a sunbeam — ^that the power 
of the Levitical priests was only a declarative power, a power 
to declare and pronounce the healthy or diseased state of the 
man. They could not make the man either healthy or dis- 
eased. They neither gave the leprosy nor took it away. 
That was the act of God himself. And the authority given 
to the priests was only to declare and pronounce that which 
God had done. It was a power purely declarative. Now as 
it was this which was in the mind of our Lord when he spoke 
these words, the inference is only natural that the power 
which he gave was only a declarative power — a power to de- 
clare and pronounce the repentant sinner to be forgiven : not 
to forgive him, but to declare and pronounce him forgiven. 
The forgiveness was the act of God himself, and the author- 
ity he gave was to declare and pronounce that which was 
done by Himself. 

That this is the true purport of our Lord's w^ords, and the 
real nature of the power given, will appear from a concise, 
simple, and scriptural argument. We read — " And the Lord 



158 EVENINGS WITH TEE ROMANISTS. 

spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, When a man shall have 
in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it 
be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy ; then he 
shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his 
sons the priests : and the priest shall look on the plague in the 
skin of the flesh : and when the hair in the plague is turned 
white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his 
flesh, it is a plague of leprosy : and the priest shall look on 
him, and pronounce him unclean. If the bright spot be white 
in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the 
skin, and* the hair thereof be not turned white ; then the 
priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days : and 
the priest shall look on him the seventh day : and, behold, if 
the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not 
in the skin ; then the priest shall shut him up seven days 
more : and the priest shall look on him again the seventh 
day : and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the 
plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him 
clean : it is but a scab : and he shall wash his clothes, and be 
clean." — Leviticus xiii. 1-6. 

It will be observed that the priest is here said to pronounce 
him unclean, at the third verse, and to pronounce him clean 
at the sixth verse. Again, we read at verses 11-13. — "It is 
an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall 
pronounce him unclean^ and shall not shut him up : for he is 
unclean. And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and 
the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague 
from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh ; 
then the priest shall consider : and, behold, if the leprosy 
have cov^ei'ed all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that 
hath the plague : it is all turned white : he is clean." 

Again, we read in verses 15-17 — "And the priest shall see 
the raw flesh, and pronounce him to he unclean : for the raw 
flesh is unclean : it is a leprosy. Or if the raw flesh turn 
again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the 
priest ; and the priest shall see him : and, behold, if the plague 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 159 

be turned into wliite ; tlien the priest shall pronounce him 
clean tliat hath the plague : he is clean." 

It will be observed in all these, and the other places 
throughout this chapter, that the priest is said to pronounce 
the man unclean, or to pronounce him clean. And it is evi- 
dent HE COULD DO NO MORE : Hc could not impart the lep- 
rosy, neither could he take away the leprosy. That was the 
work of God alone. The priest had power only to pronounce 
or declare the man infected or not infected, unclean or clean ; 
and then, according to such declaration, the man was bound 
or loosed, separated from the congregation or permitted to 
mingle in the congregation. IsTow, the point of the argument, 
as connected with this chapter, is this : In the Septuagint 
version of the Scriptures, which was the version in general 
use among the Jew s^ in the days of our Lord and His Apostles, 
the priest in this chapter is not said, as in our translation, to 
pronounce the man unclean^ but he is said to unclean or pol- 
lute the man ; and he is not said to pronounce the man clean^ 
but he is said to clean the man. He is said to do that which 
he only declares or pronounces to be done. His powers were 
not to afflict the man with leprosy, or to take away the lep- 
rosy ; not to make the man unclean or make the man clean ; 
that rested with God alone, but his powers were to pronounce 
and declare him to be clean, or to pronounce and declare him 
to be unclean, according as he found him. ISTow as this was 
the version of the Scriptures, in general use in the days of 
our Lord, and the version usually quoted by him ; so from 
that very circumstance this form of expression was one which 
our Lord was very likely to use, and v/hich his apostles and 
disciples were likely to understand. When, therefore. He 
empowered them to remit or retain sin, and so bind or loose 
the sinner. He merely used the language of the Levitical law, 
and must have designed them to understand that they, like 
the Levitical priesthood, were to declare and pronounce the 
forgiveness or nonforgiveness of sin, and so bind or loose the 
sinner ;— that as the Levitical priesthood were authorized to 
declare and pronounce a man clean or unclean in the matter 



160 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

of leprosy, so now his disciples were to declare and pronounce 
the forgiveness or non-forgiveness of God in the matter of sin. 
And therefore, I conclude, that in using this language our 
Lord designed to impart an authority to his people, not to 
grant His forgiveness or to refuse His forgiveness ; which 
belonged to himself alone, but in His name to declare and 
pronounce His forgiveness to the sinner. 

And now, to bring all this argument to a point : I hold 
that every man lay as well as clerical, has authority to pro- 
claim the Gospel, to preach Christ. And I hold, also, that 
every man, lay as well as clerical, has authority to declare and 
pronounce Christ's absolution and forgiveness of sin to all those 
that repent. This is the inherent birthright of every child of 
God — ^the inheritance into which he is eno^rafted when he is 
born again of the Holy Spirit. It is true that the church, 
that is, the clergy and laity combined^ may find it wise and 
convenient and salutary to delegate this authority, and es- 
pecially with reference to offenses against the church, more 
especially to a portion of their number, namely, to the clergy, 
as having been specially dedicated to this work. And it may, 
perhaps, be found wise and convenient and salutary that the 
clergy should thus exercise, in the name of the church, this 
special and delegated authority ; but then they do it, and 
must do, and can only do it, as from the church ; — not as 
from Christ, but only as from the church which has com- 
mitted this delegated authority to them. Jesus Christ has 
retained to himself the power of forgiveness of sins. He 
alone can forgive sins against God. And his church, that is, 
the clergy and laity combined, which of course can forgive 
sins against herself, can absolve the sinner by receiving hini 
into her communion. 

I believe that a candid examination of Matt, xviii. 18, in 
its context, will show that our Lord is alluding only to the 
offenses or injuries done among us, against each other — that 
he gives us the power to forgive each other, promising to 
ratify it in heaven. And it is probable that the place in John 
XX. 23, may refer either to the same thing, or to offenses or 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 161 

injuries to the churcli at large ; thus giving to the church the 
power of forgivdng those who have wronged her. And if the 
words in either place can be interpreted of sins as against 
God — a most doubtful supposition, and one that has not the 
least warrant from Holy Scripture — they must be explained 
by the principles of the Levitical law^ ; under that law the 
priests declared and pronounced on the cleanness and un- 
cleanness of the leper, and those priests w^ere the type of all 
believers ; who constitute " the spiritual priesthood," and 
who, whether clerical or lay, can declare and pronounce the 
forgiveness of God in Christ, for every sinner who repents 
and believes the Gospel ; and who, if clerical or ministerial, 
that is, specially chosen and sent as the ministers of the 
Church and the heralds of the Gospel, are specially authorized 
to do this. 

I feel it to be a great practical objection to the whole sys- 
tem of auricular confession and absolution, that it is incom- 
patible with the purity of divine justice. In order that di- 
vine justice may be truly pure it must be dispensed by impar- 
tial and by discriminating hands. And there is, therefore, 
nothing more essential than that the God of all the earth 
should retain it in his own hands. It is God himself who tries 
the sinner. It is God himself who holds the balance. It is 
God himself who holds the sword of judgment or the scepter 
of mercy. Thus, in our Protestant principles, all is well. But 
it is far otherwise in the Church of Rome. In the blindness of 
poor fallen man, in the clouded judgment of miserable man, in 
the partialities, and prejudices, and corruptions of human nature, 
there can be no adequate security for the due and righteous 
administration of divine justice ; it would be wholly inconsist- 
ent with the equality of God's dealings, to delegate a power 
which requires divine perfection, omniscience, and purity, to a 
creature so fallen as man. He is an unfitting judge for the eter- 
nal destinies of his fellow-men. With such a belief, nothing 
can give security. There should be the plainest, and most un- 
mistakable evidence of His delegating this power of forgiving 
or condemning sin to any one class or caste of the human fam- 



162 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ily, before we can believe it. And tliat plain and unmistaka- 
ble evidence is not pretended. 

So far from this being the case, v/e may argue beforehand 
its impossibility — its entire inconsistency with the majesty of 
the Godhead. For v/hat is the loveliest and most glorious at- 
tribute in the Divine nature, if it be not the forgiveness of 
sins ? v/hat is the brightest and most glorions jewel in the 
crown of the Eternal, if it be not the forgiveness of sins? 
And can it be— can v/e for a moment imagine, that Jehovah 
has committed that which is the glory of His nature, the es- 
sence of His reconciled Godhead, and the jewel of His royal 
diadem, into the hands of man — that He has parted with the 
noblest attribute of His Godhead, and delegated the scepter of 
mercy into the hands cf men ? AVe believe, that God bar. 
reserved all His essential attributes to Himself. He is omnis- 
cient, and He has communicated that omniscience to none, or 
otherwise He would not be the alone Omniscient : He is om- 
nipresent, and has delegated His omnipresence to none, or oth- 
erwise He would not be the alone Omnipresent : He is omnipo- 
tent, and He has imparted His omnipotence to none, or other- 
wise He would not be the alone Omnipotent And the same is 
true of the forgiveness of sins. The delegation of such pre- 
rogatives to the creature, would be placing the creature on an 
equality with the Creator. He could not himself extend for- 
giveness to follen man till He had given His own Son to make 
atonement for the sins of man. Our forgiveness cost the Lord 
Jesus the glories of the heavens which He forsook, the suffer- 
ings of the earth which he entered, the humiliation of the 
flesh which He undertook, the agony and bloody sweat, the 
exceeding sorrow of His soul unto death, and the slow, linger- 
ing, horrid death of the cross. Our forgiveness cost Him ag- 
onies no tongue can tell : for they were infinite as the sins for 
which Pie suffered, and as the justice which He satisfied. 
And it can not be, that the jewel of forgiveness, that brightest 
gem in the diadem of our reconciled God, tliat precious treas- 
ure which He has purchased at such a price as the blood of 
the cross, and which flashes the most brilHant luster of all else 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 163 

ttat is seen in tlie heavens — it can not be, that He* has given 
this to the deiiled hands and the perverted judgments and 
fallen hearts of sinners like ourselves, that we may have the 
dispensing of his treasures to others. He has no more delegat- 
ed to maa the power of forgiveness than He has delegated 
to man the power of creation. And the priests or ministers of 
the Church might assume the Divine prerogative of creation, 
as well and as reasonably, as assume the Divine prerogative of 
forgiveness. For mortal and fallen man, yea, for immortal 
and unfallen acgel, to pretend to the powers — the Divine pow- 
ers of creation, were not a greater offense to the glory of the 
alone Creator, than for either man or angel to pretend to the 
powers — the Divine powers, of the forgiveness of sins. 

I was once discussing this point vfith a Roman Catholic 
priest, in the presence of some twenty Roman Catholics. 
They had brought him to me and had put him forAvard to vin- 
dicate against me the power of forgiveness which he claimed. 

I argued on that occasion, in a particular manner, with a 
view to the answer which I expected to receive from him and 
from all present, as I knev/ that my rejoinder would then be 
more effective. I argued that God in his mercy and loving- 
kindness Yv^ould never have given to man a power so injurious 
to morality and so calculated to encourage sin. 

Wlien once men can be brought to believe that priests 
and ministers have power to forgive sins — to forgive the sins 
of the sinner against God, they become the veriest servants of 
those priests and ministers. We know from Holy Scripture, 
and all history and experience prove its truth, that men are 
willing to sacrifice thousands of rams, to offer ten thousand 
rivers of oil, and to give the fruit of their body, to get rid of 
the sin of their soul. If, therefore, such men can be brought 
to believe, that priests and ministers hold in their hands the 
scepter of forgiveness, they will become the veriest bondsmen 
— bound hand and foot at the feet of those who possess this 
power ; and they will lay all their v^^ealth at the feet of these 
priests and ministers, in order to purchase at their hands the 
forgiveness of their sins. And this, too, without any repent- 



164 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ance before God. The most abandoned profligate, the most 
filthy debauchee, the assassin, murderer, and villain, can secure 
forgiveness for all these hateful enormities, if only he can satisfy 
the priest or minister. And knowing as we do, the weakness 
and corruption of human nature, we can not be surprised at 
that which all history witnesses, that between money and fa- 
vor and patronage, a rich man finds little difficulty in satisfy- 
ing the priest or minister. The rich man has only to secure 
a soft, easy confessor, or a poor, cringing confessor, or a vicious 
and profligate confessor, and if once he has secured such a 
man, he has only to cajole the eoft priest, to bribe the poor 
priest, to feed the cringing priest, to promote the aspiring 
priest, and to wink at the profligate priest, and then he is se- 
cure of the forgiveness of his sins. If this were part and 
parcel of Christianity — as it is part and parcel of Popery — it 
would be worse than heathenism itself, for it would enable 
men to sin and be forgiven, and sin again and be forgiven 
again ; and a little favor, and more management and abund- 
ance of money, would be sure to secure forgiveness. 

I have said nothing of the scenes of temptation that are 
necessarily associated with the confessional. It is in the 
sphere of every man's experience, that if he has by any means 
discovered the hidden thing — the secret thing of a woman's 
heart — if he has discovered her great secret, perhaps a secret 
that nestled in her own breast unknown to all beside, a secret 
of her sin, of her crime, or her sinful tendencies and her un- 
holy thoughts, it is, I say in the sphere of every man's ex- 
perience, that that woman whose secret he thus knows is in 
his power. How he may be disposed to use his power is 
another question ; but he knows that that woman is in his 
power, and full often he may use that power for the worst 
and basest of purposes. It is also in the sphere of any wo- 
man's experience, that if she has committed any crime against 
the laws — any sin against morality, she tries to guard her se- 
cret in the depths of her own heart, and she feels that if she 
divulge it to any man, or if any man has got possession of it, 
she is in his power. She is no longer her own mistress, sho 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 165 

becomes his slave. Fear and suspicion of his betraying her 
places her forever at his feet, she can not refuse him any de- 
mand. And it is the same between man and man. And 
this is the confessional ; it places the secret of every woman 
in the breast of the priest, she is thus in his power for every 
purpose. It places the secret of every man in the power of 
the priest. He is from that moment his slave. This is an 
objection to the confessional to which I know of no satisfac- 
tory reply. For it necessarily places both the priest and the 
penitent under circumstances too trying for flesh and blood. 
Priests may be priests, but still the experience of mankind 
shows they are flesh and blood like others. And sure I am, 
that, considering the nature of the communications that pass 
— considering their indelicacy and indecency — considering 
they go not to the actions, but to the secret thoughts and con- 
cealed desires, all the most private, personal, mysterious feel- 
ings of our fleshly nature — sure I am, that that God who de- 
sired us to pray, that we be not led into temptation, never 
himself required us to rush into that worst of all scenes of 
temptation — the Roman Confessional. 

And then, finally, I have said nothing of that which inter- 
feres with all the most sacred sanctities of home, where the 
husband and wife should live and love in the most perfect and 
mutual confidence. There — there amid our homes, and be- 
side our hearths, sits the priest of the confessional. That man, 
by means of the confessional, know^s more of the wife's heart 
and thoughts and feehngs, he has more of her confidence, and 
knows more of her secrets, than even her own husband. 
Whatever thought of evil or of good has place in her mind 
— whatever feeling of fondness, or of alienations of love, or 
of coldness, has found a home in her heart — whatever desire 
of infidelity to her vows, or of first love to her husband has 
laid hold of her flesh — w^hatever it be, it is known to the 
confessor. All may be kept secret and unknown from all 
others, a cherished secret, and a mystery within her, scarcely 
breathed to herself, and concealed even from her husband — 
all is revealed in the confessional. All is known, for it has 



166 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

been wliispered in tlie ear of that confidant of another sex — 
that most dangerous of all things, the unmarried confidant of 
another sex — the man of the confessional ! There he sits be- 
tween the husband and the wife. By day and by night he 
has more of the secret confidence — more of the secrets, the 
heart-secrets of each, than is known to each other. There he 
sits, sometimes the kindly adviser, and sometimes the lascivi- 
ous tempter. There he sits, a mysterious being, knowing the 
heart-secrets of both — ^knov/ing perhaps the secret infidelity 
of both, and thus having both in his power, able to wield them 
both to his personal purpose. There he sits, the living and 
continual representative of that scene, when in the Garden of 
Eden, the man and the woman lived and loved together, and 
were holy when alone, but one entered, and there was whisper- 
ing with the woman, and insidious questions were put to her, 
and she fell ! It was the type of the confessional. 

Note. — It is a favorite objection against iis, that in the Church of 
England the power of forgiving sins is claimed as strongly as in the 
Chnrch of Eome. And when it is said, in reply to this, that the 
Church of England merely authorizes a declarative forgiveness — "power 
to declare, and pronounce to his people being penitent, the absolution 
and remission of their sins ;" that is, a power, not to forgive, but only 
to " declare and pronounce" that " God pardoneth and absolveth all 
them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe in his holy GospeL" 
"When this is said in reply to the objection, it is usually met by a refer- 
ence to the form of absolution used in the office for the visitation of 
the sick. 

The form is as follows, and will be found to be merely the exponent 
of the opmions already expressed. 

" Our Lord Jesus Christ — who hath left power to his Church, to 
ohsolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him — -forgive thee 
thine oifenses. And by his authority committed to ?ne, I absolve thee 
of all thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." 

Here the power o^ forgiveness of sins is expressly reserved, as the act 
and promise of Jesus Christ ; and the words are in the form of a prayer, 
that Jesus Christ might forgive the -sinner. " The Lord Jesus Christ — 
forgive thee thine offenses." 

And the power of absolving is expressly attributed to the Chueoh, 



CONFESSION AND AESOLUTION. 1C7 

not to the clergy or priesthood alone, but to the church, which is de- 
fined as "a congregation of faitliful people, etc.," consisting of both 
clergy and laity ; and this power, for communion, is committed by the 
church to the acting clergyman. 

Thus the forgiveness of sins is described as the special work of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. And the absolving is ascribed to the Church, 
tnat is, to the clergy and laity combined. Now this absolution is a very 
different thing from forgiveness. The latter belongs exclusively to 
Christ ; the former He has given to the Church. The difference be- 
tween them is this : — As the Levitical priest looked on the leper who 
was healed, he saw that God had healed or cleansed him ; and that 
he might now loose him from the restraint that prevented his mingling 
with the people. G-od healed or cleansed the man. The priest pro- 
nounced him so healed or cleansed of God, and loosed him of his re- 
straint. So under the Gospel, it is only Christ that can forgive the 
sin of the sinner. And when the minister sees the repentance of the 
sinner — sees that Christ has forgiven him and given him repentance — 
he absolves him, that is, he frees him from the restraint which the 
discipline of the church has imposed upon him, and thus receives him 
again into the communion of the church. Christ has* given forgive- 
ness. The minister of the church then absolves the man. The truth 
is, that the old language of theology applied the word '^ forgiveness" to 
the sin of the soul, in its relation to God ; while it applied the word 
" absolution" to the position of the offending man, in relation to the 
church. 

I have frequently stated, when giving this answer to my friends of 
the Church of Rome, that I felt the objection ought never to have 
come from them — ^that when the Liturgy was in process of compila- 
tion, a very large proportion of the population still retained their old 
love ; perhaps, a superstitious, but certainly a very old love for the 
Roman absolution in the point of death — that in a kindly, and loving, 
and motherly spirit toward such weak consciences — toward such weak 
children, the Church of England consented, that to such as " humbly 
and heartily desire it," the minister should pronounce this absolution. 
She did this in the fullness of love, and gentleness, and compassion 
for them and their weak consciences ; and all she guarded against was 
— that she should not seem to claim the power of forgiving the sin. 
She, therefore, carefully ascribes this to Christ alone ; and only claims 
to her herself the right fo absolution. Having done this in so true 
and compassionate a spirit toward those who were still so much Ro- 
manists, I feel that the objection ought never to have come from the 
Church of Rome. 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE IN 
PUBLIC WORSHIP. 

The Use of the Latin Tonpcue in all the Liturgical Services of the Church of Eome 
— Its Incapacity for Edifying the People — Considered as a Matter of Discipline — 
Its Inconsistency with the Gift of Tongues— Its Opposition to the Holy Scriptures 
— Its supposed Convenience for Travelers— Its alleged Universality and Antiquity 
considered — The Devotional Books read during the Public Services — The Ar- 
gument based on Unity or Uniformity in Worship — Its supposed Justification in 
Holy Scripture. 

The following conversation arose out of a public meeting. 
It was a meeting of the Bible Society, and was held in a vil- 
lage, small and remote. I had spoken, and in referring to the 
opposition to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, then 
warmly carried on by the Eoman Catholic priesthood, I ex- 
pressed my surprise at the apparent inconsistency they ex- 
hibited. I stated that they celebrated the sacrifices of the 
mass in the Latin tono-ue — a tono'ue which was not under- 
stood, probably, by one solitary individiial in the congregation. 
It was to them hard, indeed impossible to be understood*; and 
yet the people attended but understood not, and they heard 
but understood not ; but they still attended and still heard, 
and were taught and required, as necessary to salvation, still 
to attend and still to hear, although they felt and knew that 
they could not understand a word of it. I then said that the 
inconsistency of the Roman Catholic priests was this — ^they 
commanded the people not to read or hear the Holy Scrip- 
tures, because they were hard to be understood — because none 
but the learned could understand them — because the ignorant 
people could not understand them ; whereas they commanded 
the people to attend and hear mass, which was celebrated in 
the Latin language, although it was impossible to uuderstand 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 169 

it. There was liere an inconsistency, for if tlie difficulty of 
understanding the language of Holy Scripture were a sufficient 
reason for not reading or hearing them ; then the difficulty of 
understanding the Latin language of the mass must be a suf- 
ficient reason for not attending or hearing it. 

This argument had made a considerable impression on some 
Roman Catholics who were present in the meeting ; and the 
following conversation was with one of these. It commenced 
with some reference to the foregoing inconsistency, and after 
a time turned altogether upon the practice of the Church of 
Eome. 

I was careful that I should not speak in a tone of contro- 
versy, as if searching to show how widely we differed ; but 
rather to speak to his judgment and common sense and good 
feeling, and then lead him to the inferences he might himself 
be disposed to draw. 

I commenced, by saying, that I thought the great mission 
of the church was, by teaching and instruction to overcome 
the ignorance and the indifference of the world — that the vice 
and immorality that prevailed seemed to spring from our fallen 
nature — and that the divine mission of the Church was to 
gi'apple with the ignorance and indifference of men- — to ele- 
vate them above the world in which they lived, and perfect 
them for a higher and a purer sphere — by presenting the light 
of revealed religion and developing the true principles of 
morality, and unfolding the glorious promises of the gospel of 
Christ — that with that view she ought to give all her energies 
to the enlightening the ignorance and darkness that prevail — 
that carefully avoiding the unintelligible, or whatever was not 
calculated to instruct, she should order all things so as to 
realize the apostle's maxim, " let all things be done to edifica- 
tion" — that avoiding every thing that was beyond the capaci- 
ties of the masses of mankind, she should arrange all things 
in the worship of God, so as to be most adapted for the in- 
struction of the ignorant, and for the edification of the many, 
and for the elevation of all, thus realizing the true mission of 
the Church of Christ as the great teacher of mankind. 

8 



170 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

All this was at once assented to. I therefore went on to 
say, that it was on this principle that the Church of England, 
and all the Protestant Churches, acted in all their arrange- 
ments for public worship. The Holy Scriptures are read pub- 
licly for the divine teaching of the people. Exhortations, ex- 
positions, sermons are added to illustrate, enforce and apply 
the word of God. The Lord's Supper, which represents and 
teaches how the Saviour died on the cross for the salvation of 
His people — the Baptism, which symbolizes and teaches that 
as water cleanses the outward body, so the Holy Spirit must 
wash and cleanse the inner and outer life alike from the love 
and practice of sin — these sacramental rites, with all the 
praises and thanksgivings and intercessions and prayers, are 
expressed in the clearest and simplest language, in the com- 
mon language of the people, so that all may hear and under- 
stand, and be instructed and edified. The Protestant Churches 
thus realize the mission of the Church as the great teacher of 
mankind. But the Church of Rome presents a striking con- 
trast to all this. All her services for Baptism, for the Lord's 
Supper, for the sacrifice of the mass, and all her sacramental 
rites, are conducted in the Latin language. And the conse- 
quence is that in her public worship every thing is above and 
beyond the comprehension of the masses of her people, and 
therefore can not tend to their enlightenment or edification. 

It was at once acknowledged that all this was true ; at 
least, that these services being in the Latin language, were un- 
intelligible to the people ; but, it was added, that although the 
people did not understand the words, that is, the prayers, yet 
they were so well instructed in the nature of these services 
that they understood them in all that was necessary, and 
could piously and devoutly join in them, not perhaps, say- 
ing the very same prayers, but still saying some prayers of 
their own, and thus joining in the holy mysteries with devo- 
tion and profit. 

I replied, that there could be no doubt of the deep, earnest, 
heartfelt devotion of many who attended these -services, how- 
ever unintelligible. I had lived too much among Roman 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. l7l 

Catholics and seen too much of their system, not to know and 
feel that there was true-hearted and humble devotion among 
many. But, I added, that this was different from the system, 
and, as I believed, despite of the system. The result — the 
natural result of this system is, that as the congregation can 
not understand the Latin liturgy, they supply themselves with 
other and totally different liturgies in their own language. 
One has " The Garden of the Soul," and another " The Key 
to Heaven f some employ " The Path to Paradise," and 
others " The Sacred Heart." Every member supplies himself 
with such liturgical or devotional book as may suit his pecu- 
liar taste, each being different from the other, and all agreeing 
only in being totally different from the service as performed 
by the officiating priest at the altar ; no two forms of prayer 
in these books being the same, and all being different from 
the authorized liturgy, the Latin liturgy made use of by the 
priest ! A state of things like this is wholly incapable of in- 
structing or edifying the people. They hear it, but they do 
not comprehend it. They see it, but they do not understand 
it. They attend it, but they do not take part in it. And the 
consequence is, that being utterly unconscious of what is say- 
ing at the altar, it has become the universal practice to ring a 
little bell to give notice to the congregation when the Host is 
about to be elevated, and they are to prostrate themselves to 
adore it ! They seem to have no better way of knowing the 
moment — not knowing the language of the service — than the 
ringing of a little bell ! 

I have always found this method of reasoning have its 
natural influence on all who are capable of being influenced 
by any thing. In general, Eoman Catholics of mind and 
feeling and education express their regret that such a system 
should be retained in their Church. My present companion was 
frank and open on the point, adding, however, that it was merely 
a matter of discipline and not a matter of faith ; and that the 
pope could at any time command a change, by which all the 
services shouM be celebrated in the common language of 
every country. 



172 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

To this the reply was obvious, and I could not hesitate in 
making it — namely, that this apology only makes the matter 
worse than before ; for, if the practice were one of necessity, 
one that was unalterable, there would be no need of further 
excuse ; but when it is admitted that there is no such neces- 
sity — that it is in the power of the pontiff to alter it, then the 
objection becomes still more fatal against a system so unrea- 
sonable and unedifying and wrong in itself, and which might 
be so easily reformed if they would. 

When the argument was in this position I urged that the 
pope has no right to enforce a practice, not only objectionable 
and unedifying in itself, but directly contrary to the plain 
language of Holy Scripture. And then opening the volume, 
I commenced by reading the second chapter of the Acts of 
the Apostles, from the first to the eleventh verses — "And 
when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with 
one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound 
from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the 
house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
them cloven tongues hke as of fire, and it sat upon each of 
them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them 
utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, 
devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when 
this was noised abroad the multitude came together, and 
were confounded, because that every man heard them speak 
in his own language. And they were all amazed and mar- 
veled, saying one to another. Behold, are not all those which 
speak Galileans ? And how hear we every man in our own 
tongue wherein we were born ? Parthians, and Medes, and 
Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and 
Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in 
Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Gyrene, and strangers 
of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, do we 
hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of 
God." The argument on this is, that it details Ibat wonderful 
event by which the foundations of the Christian Church were 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 173 

laid — the gift of tong;ues. Our Lord had commanded His 
apostles to go forth and preach the Gospel to every nation, 
teaching them and baptizing them. And now, to enable 
them to do this, the Holy Spirit shed on them this miraculous 
gift of being able to understand and speak all the languages 
of the nations among whom they were to preach, and teach, 
and baptize. The wonderful character of this miracle was 
immediately perceptible. And " every man heard them speak 
in their own language, and they w^ere all amazed and marveled, 
saying — How hear we every man in our own tongue wherein 
we were born ? — we do hear them speak in our own tongues 
the wonderful works of God." Here was the fundamental 
miracle of the Christian Church, and for any particular or 
national Church, as that of Rome, to prohibit the use of a 
known tongue in the services of public worship — to compel 
the service of the Lord's Supper, which preaches " the w^onder- 
ful work" of the dying Saviour — to compel the administration 
of Baptism, which teaches " the wonderful work" of the Holy 
Spirit — to compel these to be celebrated in the Latin language 
instead of the common language of the people, is an act in 
direct contradiction of this fundamental miracle of the Christian 
Church. It wTiS plainly intended that every country should 
enjoy the ministrations of Christ's Church in the language of 
the country, and not in a dead, unknown tongue, which is 
not spoken in any one country on the face of God's wide crea- 
tion. But, instead of this, and against this, which clearly 
implies, not a uniformity but a diversity of languages, the 
Church of Rome requires, that whether in Italy or in Spain, 
whether in France or in Ireland, w^hether among the Hotten- 
tots of Africa, among the Chinese of Asia, or the Red Indians 
of America, the great services — all the sacramental services of 
the Church shall be administered in the Latin lano^uaofe, so 
that none can understand, none can be edified, and all the 
services seem a mysterious charm and unintelligible incanta- 
tion. If it had been the will of God that all the services of 
His Church were to be in Latin, He could have given the 



174 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

single gift of the Latin tongue. That alone had sufficed and 
there was no need of the o^ifts of other tonnes. 

I have never known any serious attempt to answer this» 
argument from the gift of tongues. I have, indeed, known 
various efforts to excuse the Latin service, but I have never 
known any attempt worth the name of an answer to this 
argument itself. There was no attempt on the present occa- 
sion, I, therefore, opened the fourteenth chapter of 1 Cor. and 
read — " jS'ow, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with 
tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you 
either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying or 
by doctrine ? And even things without life giving sound, 
whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the 
sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped ? For 
if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare 
himself to the battle ? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the 
tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known 
what is spoken ? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it 
may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of 
them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the 
meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a bar- 
barian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." 
On this I remarked that the Apostle is alluding to the im- 
proper exercise of the gift of tongues, and reproving those 
who in the church used an unknown tongue. He argues 
from musical instruments, which must be intelligently played, 
in order to yield real harmony. He argues from the trumpet 
gniiding armies in the battle-field, that if the sound be not 
understood it could not be obeyed ; and so if the trumpet of 
the gospel be not intelligible, it can not be profitable in lead- 
ing to the warfare against sin. And finally he states that so 
long as the minister of the church employs an unknown lan- 
guage," the ministers and the people will be no better than 
barbarians, that is, non-intelligent and unintelhgible to each 
other. 

To this it was objected that all this referred to the preach- 
ing of the Gospel to the peoj^^le — that with that view the gift 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. l75 

of speaking in unknown tongues was given, and, accordingly, 
in the Church of Rome, they always and everywhere preached 
in the common language of the people — that all this Scripture 
referred to preaching and to praying, not to religious services. 
To this I at once answered that the argument of the apos- 
tles goes further than this, applying it to prayer and praise, as 
well as to preaching and teaching ; he says, " For if I pray in 
an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understand- 
ing is unfruitful. What is it then ? I will pray with the 
spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also ; I will 
sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding 
also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall 
he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy 
giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou say- 
est ? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not 
edified.'' Here he applies the argument to prayer and praise, 
which constitute the main elements of public worship, and 
while he urges that the language should be understood, he 
asks in a tone that shows he felt his question was unanswer- 
able. " When thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he 
that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy 
giving of thanks, seeing that he understandeth not what thou 
sayest ?" The apostle seems never to have thought of the in- 
vention of a little bell to be rung, that the unlearned might 
know, when they were to say this Amen to a prayer or thanks- 
giving, which they did not understand! My companion 
smiled at this, shook his head and said it was true — too true. 
I then continued, saying that the apostle goes yet further than 
this, in his argument against the system ; for he says, '' I thank 
my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all : Yet in the 
church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, 
that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand 
words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in 
understanding : howbeit in malice be ye children, but in un- 
derstanding be men. In the law it is written. With men of 
other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people ; 
And yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 



176 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, 
but to them that beheve not ; but prophesying serveth not for 
them that believe not, but for them which beheve. If there- 
fore the whole church be come together into one place, and 
all speak with tongues, and there shall come in those that are 
unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say ye are mad ? But 
if all prophesy, and there come in one that belie veth not, or 
one that is unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of 
all : and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest ; and 
so falling down upon his face he will worship God, and report 
that God is in you of a truth." In all this he states, that with 
all his Imowledge of languages, he preferred to say five words 
in an intellio-ible lanOTaore than a thousand which were un- 
known, or not underetood. And if, as so many Romanists 
imagine, that the five words alluded to are hoc enim est corpus 
raeum — "for this is my body" — the five mystic words by 
which the transubstantiation is eifected in the mass, it will 
prove that the Canon of the mass should especially be read in 
a language knov> n and understood by the people. Indeed the 
apostle adds, verse 20, that it seemed a very childish thing, 
and inconsistent with the understanding of thinking men, that 
this practice should be permitted : and he implies, verse 21, 
that such a practice was a curse and not a blessing. And he 
finally contrasts the two systems in their natural efiects. In 
a service in an unknown tonofue an unlearned man hears noth- 
ing but unintelhgible sounds, and may well say that they are 
mad ; while in a service in the known language of the people, 
he enters, hears, and understands, and the message of the gos- 
pel convinces him of his sins, and leads him to prayer and the 
worship of God. The argument of the apostle is thus plain 
and cogent throughout. It is utterly inconsistent with the 
practice of the Church of Rome in her Latin services ; and 
however ingenious men may invent ingenious apologies and 
excuses for her practice, it must be admitted that her practice 
is directly opposed to the di^dne authority. 

Among intelligent and candid Roman Catholics, I have 
never known an attempt to get rid of this argument of the 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 177 

apostle : I have often pressed it, and often with the same 
eflfect. They feel it fully, and can not answer it. But instead 
of yielding to it, instead of bowing humbly and obediently to 
the Divine authority, they struggle against, and they endeavor 
to show that, notwithstanding the judgment of the apostle^ there 
are some advantages in the Latin services. This, as might be 
expected, was the course pursued by my companion on the 
present occasion. He said that the universal use of Latin 
tends to unity or uniformity of worship, so as that, let a 
Roman Catholic travel where he may, he will be sure to find 
precisely the same form of worship, the same prayers, and in 
the same language — that by having the mass, and all the sac- 
ramental services always in the Latin language ; whether in 
China or Peru, whether in Canada or Algeria, whether in 
Spain or England, whether among the Indians of America or 
the peasantry of Ireland, the traveler will always find the serv- 
ices the same. Wherever the stranger wanders, wherever 
the emigrant settles, he hears the same well-known words, he 
hears the Catholic Church speaking to him in the same words ; 
words unintelligible perhaps, but still pleasant, because still the 
same ; he had heard them and loved them in his own land — 
always in the Latin language, always the same. 

He spoke with vivacity. His thoughts were with some of 
his family, who had emigrated and were far away. He had 
traveled much, and seen much as a soldier in his youth. Ho 
was now contemplating emigration to join those who had. gone 
before, to prepare the way. All this gave point and feeling to 
his words. 

I said in reply, that whatever conveniences might be sup- 
posed to be connected with the practice, they could not excuse 
and certainly could not justify, a practice so plainly contrary 
to the clear language of Holy Scripture. And certainly a 
problematical convenience to a solitary traveler or a lonely 
emigrant was an insuflScient justification. Travelers and emi- 
grants will always be very few compared with the multitude. 
And, according to this argument, the vast multitude is incon- 
venienced for the sake of the few — the whole population is to 



178 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

be inconvenienced by having worship celebrated in an un- 
known language which no one understands, and all for the 
convenience of a few travelers or emigrants ! Such an argu- 
ment implies that for the convenience of a few Spanish travel- 
ers or settlers in England, the whole population of England is 
to be inconvenienced by having their religious services in a 
language unintelligible to them — that for the convenience of a 
few Italian travelers or emigrants in Germany, the whole popu- 
lation of Germany must endure the inconvenience of their 
puMic worship being in a language they can not understand — 
that for the convenience of some Irish travelers or emigrants to 
America, the whole people of America must be subjected to the 
inconvenience of the Latin liturgy. This indeed, would be sac- 
rificing the interests of the many to the convenience of the few 
— ^sacrificing a whole population to the wishes of a few travelers 
or emigrants. And, after all, I added, it could be no real or 
substantial advantage even to them. For, if a Spaniard, trav- 
eling or settling in England, could not understand a service 
in English, neither could he understand it in Latin. And al- 
though an Italian traveler or settler in Germany might not 
comprehend a service in German, yet he would be in the very 
same difficulty as not understanding a service in Latin. And 
as to an Irish traveler or emigrant in America, whether he 
could or could not understand an English service, he certainly 
would not find it more intelligible by finding it in Latin. And 
thus this convenience of a Latin service amounts simply to 
this — that wherever the traveler wanders, or the emigrant 
settles, he must find the services of his Church in a language 
which he does not understand ! 

This mode of meeting his argument did not seem to be 
palatable ; perhaps it touched too closely his personal feelings 
respecting emigrants ; he certainly took no notice of it, but 
immediately suggested another argument, one of very frequent 
use among the members of the Church of Kome. 

He argued, that it had been the universal practice of the 
church — that in all ages, and in all places the liturgies were in 
the Latin tongue — ^that Latin was the language of the church, 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 179 

and that it was a part of the communion of saints that the 
dnirch in the present age should be found speaking to her 
children in the very same accents she had used in former ages, 
and that it belonged to the perpetuity and unchangeableness 
of the church to continue forever her services in the same 
language. And yet further, it was argued, that this use of the 
Latin tongue thus became an argument in favor of the Church 
of Rome ; as being a sign that she is still the same she ever 
was — the Holy Catholic Church. 

I answered this, by saying that it was utterly erroneous — 
altogether vv^rong and untrue, to say that this was at all times 
and all places the universal practice of the church. The 
Church of Jesus Christ commenced in Jerusalem ; and all the 
gospels and epistles were written in Greek, and it was there- 
fore probable that those, who like the apostles, usually wrote 
in Greek, spoke and prayed, and preached also in Greek. In- 
deed it is very certain, that all the earliest or primitive churches 
had their services in Greek ; for all the most ancient liturgies, 
which have come down to us, have been in the Greek lan- 
guage. And to this day the Greek Church, the Armenian 
Church, the Coptic Christians, the Nestorian Christians, the 
Syrian Christians, and all the Eastern Churches, have their 
liturgies in the languages of the East and not one of them use 
the Latin. [I could affirm this in some respect on personal 
knowledge, for I have heard the communion-services or litur- 
gies of these Eastern Churches in five different forms and lan- 
guages by the priests of so matiy different churches. A word 
of Latin was not used by any of them.] It is very true, I 
added, that in the Western or Latin Churches, inasmuch as the 
language of Western Europe was more Latin than any other, 
60 the Latin was more generally used in their sacred services. 
It was the language then best understood, and therefore it was 
the language best to be used. It was the language of Rome 
and Italy and other countries, and was therefore the fittest 
language for the liturgies of those countries. But so far was 
this from being uniform, that we know of Spain, France, and 
England having different liturgies, and some^even in different 



180 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

languages. Even in Italy herself, her liturgies were not uni- 
formly the same, and the fact is certain, that even there, in 
those parts of Italy that were colonized from Greece, the serv- 
ices were in the Greet language. In process of time — in 
process of some centuries, all those differences were gradually 
suppressed, and the Church of Rome was enabled to impose 
her Latin liturgy upon all, even after the Latin ceased to be a 
spoken language. For some centuries the Latin language has 
disappeared ft'om Europe, but the Church of Rome retains the 
old and exploded tongue ; and this is the real cause of the 
mass and other services being still in Latin — a language not 
understood by the people of any country in the world. The 
few learned may know it. The masses of the people do not 
understand one word of it. 

My friend demurred to this. He did not, and he said 
with great courtesy, that he would not of course set his word 
against mine, but that he had read, that Latin was always the 
language of the Church of Rome. But, he added, that the 
people found no inconvenience in it, because they had transla- 
tions, and a great variety of pious books, by means of which 
they could follow the priest, and understand the service ; and 
he appealed to my own knowledge of the fact, as ha\dng often 
seen the members of the Roman Catholic con2:reo'ations with 
their books, as devoutly reading during service, as the mem- 
bers of Protestant congregations. 

My reply to this, was, that I certainly had seen many Roman 
Catholics reading their books in their churches, but not read- 
ing the service or liturgy of their Church — not following or 
reading with the officiatiDg priest, either the original, or a 
translation. I reminded him, of there being no book of Com- 
mon Prayer among them, there being no book of Common 
Prayer authorized by the Church of Rome — no authorized 
liturgy for the laity — and no authorized translation of the serv- 
ice of the mass, in any language. Each member selects any 
volume of devotions, or any compilations of prayers, that may 
be most suitable to his taste. There are of course great vari- 
eties of these, none of them being authorized by the Church 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 181 

of Rome, and each member selecting such private compilation 
of private prayers, takes it to his place of worship, and occu- 
pies himself in these prayers, while the priest at the altar is 
reciting a form of prayers of a totally different character. [I 
have myself observed at Rome, cardinals, bishops, priests, 
monks, laymen, and women. I have myself looked into 
their books at such devotions, and have sometimes read with 
them out of the same book of prayers. I have seen one read- 
ing a psalm, another reading a prayer, some reading a litany, 
others reading a legend in the breviary, all devout and intent 
in their isolated way, but all reading what was not only dif- 
ferent from each other, but altogether different from the priest 
officiating at the altar ! They have no idea of the unity of 
worship, of the communion of prayer as it exists among us. 
It is among them just as it would be among us, if, while the 
minister was reading the litany, one portion of the congrega- 
tion was reading the communion-service, and another por- 
tion was reading the morning prayer, and others poring over 
the forms for marriage or for baptism ; or as if, while the 
minister was reading a chapter from the gospels, some of the 
congregation were reading the prophets, and others studying 
the epistles, or perhaps some reading I^elson's " Fasts and 
Festivals," while others were perusing Doddridge's " Rise and 
Progress." This is the practice in the Church of Rome, a 
practice so general as that it may be called universal.] There 
is, perhaps, scarcely one individual in the whole congregation 
who reads the translation of the services, so as to enable him 
to understand the service and follow the priest who officiates. 
But many a one thinks he does so, for in many of their devo- 
tional books there are prayers entitled " prayers that may be 
said during the mass," and in their simplicity, they imagine 
these to be translations of the service of the mass. They are 
totally different — different in their form, and no less different 
in their object. The very title of those prayers implies this 
difference, and therefore it is a simple fiction to assert that 
there is no inconvenience in the Latin services on the ground 



182 EVENIITGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that they have translations in their prayer-books, to enable 
them to follow and understand. 

Having appealed to the experience and knowledge of my 
companion on this point, he at once frankly acknowledged it. 
He said, they generally used a variety of prayer-books, but 
that in most of them, there was at the end a translation of the 
mass-service, which they could read if they wished, but that it 
was not their custom, as every one prayed for himself, and 
sometimes liked his own prayer-book better than the transla- 
tion. He then added, that he had lately read another reason 
for the Latin tongue. 

It was to the effect that it presented a graceful and beauti- 
ful conception — unity of language in worship. The Church 
was to be a universal brotherhood or society, extending 
through the whole woild — comprehending men of every 
color, and of every clime, and of every tongue — and that the 
Church of Rome presented the glorious spectacle of such a 
brotherhood or society, speaking to all these in one and the 
same language, and habituating all these to a worship in 
which they all used only one common language. However 
separated in color or chmate, by distance or by customs, in 
nature or in language, yet here in the highest of all acts of 
worship they were united, for every where there was only the 
one language. It was an anticipation of heaven, where all 
would yet speak but one language. 

I rephed that all this was only a fanciful idea, that might 
seem grand and beautiful to some, for there was no account- 
ing for tastes, but was neither practical nor profitable. That 
the God of the universe permitted for wise purposes of his 
ov/n, a diversity of languages among the nations in speaking 
of Him and of His works, and He certainly has given no 
reason to suppose that he has departed from this in the relig- 
ious worship of his people. And as to a unity of language, it 
leads to a unity of unintelligibility, for as the Latin tongue is not 
the native tongue of any one people in the world, so the unity — 
the real unity which is obtained by it, is the fact that no peo- 
ple in the world shall understand it — a unity of being unintel- 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 183 

ligible ! And this brotlierliood or society is presented a spec- 
tacle before men and angels, as one^ which for the sake of 
unity of language, has adopted a system which establishes 
them in a unity of non-intelligent worshipers ! 

I added that there was a far nobler and magnificent spec- 
tacle in looking upon the church as extending herself through 
every tongue, and nation, and people, and contemplating the 
children of the Saviour — the men of every hue and every land 
— those who look upon the mighty icebergs of the frozen 
north, those w^ho breathe the perfumes of the sunny south, those 
who wander beside the ancient Euphrates, or dwell along the 
banks of the aged Nile, or hunt among the prairies of the 
gigantic Mississippi, the children of the oak, or the children 
of the palm-tree — contemplating all these, lifting up holy 
hands and grateful hearts and prayerful spirits, and believing 
minds, and trustful natures to Him, who has loved them, and 
given himself for them. And doing all this with unity of 
heart and soul, each in his own tongue, and in his own way, 
and in his own land, and among his own friends ; in all the 
diversity of language, and color of face, as well as of climate 
and of country. This seems to me a far more beautiful and 
nobler spectacle, and is a more holy, touching and acceptable 
sight in the eyes of Him with whom w^e have to do, than a 
mere unity of language, especially of a language which is not 
understood in any nation of the world — a unity of non-intelli- 
gent worshipers ! 

He shook his head at this, as if unwilling to receive it, but 
he offered nothing in reply. He was silent. With a few 
words on the necessity of religion being spiritual rather than 
ceremonial, and internal rather than external — as wrought in us 
and practiced hy us, rather than an affair transacted by some 
priesthood /or us, w^e parted. 

It is very seldom that the members of the Church of Eome 
advance any further apology for this practice. In these coun- 
tries, how^ever, as Ireland and Italy, where they are in the 
deepest darkness, and where they regard religion as a matter 
which belongs not to the laity, but to the clergy, and which is 



184 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

to bexnanaged by the latter, for and in behalf of the former — 
a matter in which every thing that is essential is done for 
them and not hy them — a matter which is of external cere- 
monial rather than internal operation — they sometimes argue 
that as the mass is a sacrifice, not done hy them^ but /or them^ 
so there can be no necessity for their understanding it. And 
they endeavor to justify this by alluding to the fact mentioned 
in the gospel narrative, where Zechariah is described as enter- 
ing the temple to burn incense, where all the people were 
waiting without, neither understanding nor seeing what he did. 
The answer to this reference to the Gospel narrative is that 
the burning incense in the holy place was a service appertain- 
ing to the priest alone. Those priests were typical persons, 
and their incense Avas a typical rite ; and had no reference 
whatever to the people who waited without. They had no 
part in it, and had nothing to do with it. Those priests burn- 
ing incense within the holy place were the types of those 
Christian persons — those faithful ones whom an apostle calls 
'^ a holy priesthood." They were the types of all true believ- 
ers, who live in a spirit of prayer, presenting their prayers for- 
ever in " the holy place " of the Church of Christ. But this 
had no reference to the people who were waiting without. 
They never saw it. They never had part in it, and as these 
were not their prayers nor words, so there was nothing for 
them to know or understand. Indeed, if the text proves any 
thing, it proves too much, for it would prove that if the mass 
be any thing of this nature, there is no necessity or use in the 
people seeing it, hearing it, attending or being present at it. 
They may as well stay without, and never approach it at all ! 
And as for the argument that the mass is a sacrifice, it is at 
once met by the simple denial of such a doctrine ; but even if 
it were all they assert, it could not justify the practice of the 
Church of Rome, for in a sacrifice, according to the Levitical 
law, the person who offered it had part in the act, as large a 
part as the priest ; for he was to bring the victim to the door 
of the tabernacle where the altar was, he was to present the 
victim as his substitute, thereby showing his belief in " the 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 185 

Lamb of God," by whom, as bis substitute, all bis sins were 
atoned for ; he was to lay bis hands upon its bead, so as to 
identify himself universally with it, and acknowledge his sins 
over it, as acknowledging his sins to bis Saviour, and there be 
was to slay the victim, showing his faith in the truth, that bis 
salvation is only in the death of Him who died, " the just for 
the unjust, that he might bring us to God." It was then that 
the priest, after having accepted it as bis substitute, was to 
collect the blood and sprinkle it as directed by the law, showing 
that all our salvation is from the sprinkling of blood of " the 
Lamb of God." In all this, the persons who offered the sacri- 
fice had more to do, and had a larger share in the ceremony, 
than the priest himself. And besides this, there was no form 
of words, there were no form of prayers, there were no forms 
of thanksgiving, there was nothing of the kind, so that no par- 
allel can be drawn from these in favor of Latiu services con- 
nected with the mass, to which the services presented no par- 
allel whatever. 

This argument, however, is now seldom urged except 
among those who regard religion as a matter belonging to the 
clergy and not to the people. In an age of light and of 
knowledge like the present, and in a country like this, in 
which every man feels he must understand all be is required 
to do, and in which it is universally felt that all worship of 
God on the part of intelligent creatures ought to be an intelli- 
gent worship, according to our Lord's words, " God is a Spirit, 
and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in 
truth," it would never do to argue that there is no need for the 
people to understand the prayers that constitute their worship. 
It would be arguing a foregone conclusion to discuss it. 

I have generally found that in conversation, our opponents 
are perplexed and embarrassed by this practice of using the 
Latin language. This perplexity and embarrassment are in- 
creased where the members of the Church of Rome — and they 
are many — have felt and have reprobated the mischief of the 
practice, its unedifying nature, and the scandal it has caused, 
by giving us so strong a ground of exception against them. 



186 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS, 

It is a subject of constant regret among themselves. And in 
countries like these, where there is s'o much reflex light from 
intelligent Protestantism, penetrating even the dimness of 
Romanism, some of the bishops liave felt themselves obliged to 
yield, and have allowed the Epistles and Gospels sometimes to 
be read in English, thus giving a small — a very small install- 
ment of their demands. And as this did not altogether sat- 
isfy, they have also allowed that at other hours, where there 
is not a mass or any sacramental service, or any of the author- 
ized services, the people may have prayers, unauthorized pray- 
ers in Enghsh, either with or without the attendance of a 
priest ; and the people are cajoled out of a translation of their 
authorized liturgies by the use, at uncanonieal hours, of un- 
authorized forms in English ! 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 

The supposed Advantage of Prayer to the Saints — Objection arising from the Me- 
diatorship of Christ — How can the Saints hear our Prayers — The Protestant 
View of the Saints contrasted with that of the Romanists — The Joy of Angels at 
the Sinner s Repentance — Inconsistency of the Romish Theory — Their supposed 
Sympathy with us— The Origin of the System of Rome— The true Source of 
Comfort in the Sympathy of Christ. 

It was in conversation with a man of higli moral character, 
that I took the opportunity of inquiring into the principle of 
his morality. He was a man of very high reputation for re- 
ligious devotion, there was a religiousness about him that 
seemed to give a color to all he did ; so that in all his every- 
day dealings, and in the ordinary affairs of human life, in all 
his intercourse with his fellow-men, there was a deep sense of 
religion, a thorough and earnest religiousness that insured 
honesty, integrity, frankness, kindness, and charity. He was 
a man universally and deservedly respected ; for v/hile rehgion 
was his profession, it was also his practice ; a religion that, 
whether right or wrong — and I feel and know that it was 
wrong — was real, unobtrusive, and simple. He was a man 
belonging to the class of small farmers, cultivating his hold- 
ing, which, though small, was amply sufficient to supply all 
his wants, and those of his family ; so that he held a position 
which made him, in connection with his character, an inde- 
pendent and respected man. 

It was in conversing with this excellent man, in whom I 
felt no ordinary interest as a Roman Catholic, that I asked 
him to explain to me how it was that he was enabled to resist 
the temptations to which so many others around him were 
constantly yielding. I knew the temptations of those around 



188 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

liim, I knew they too often yielded and fell into sin, and I was 
aware that this man had been enabled to escape them. I 
asked the question frankly, and he answered as frankly. 

He said that he had devoted himself to St. Peter, the 
prince of the apostles, upon whom, as the Rock, our blessed 
Lord had built the Church ; and that he endeavored to hve 
as if St. Peter was beside him — that he endeavored always to 
realize the constant ]3resence of that saint — that his earnest 
desire was to avoid doing any thing that might possibly dis- 
please him. He stated that whenever he was under tempta- 
tion — whenever there was a danger of his yielding to any sin, 
he immediately called to mind the presence of that apostle, 
and asked himself the question, whether it might not be dis- 
pleasing to him ; and he added, that it was his experience, 
that the thought of giving grief or sorrow to St. Peter, was 
always able to induce him to resist the temptation and escape 
the sin. 

This was his own account of the matter. And he was one 
who was not deficient either in shrew^dness or intelligence. I 
had known some instances of persons bearing the same, pre- 
cisely the same feeling toward the Virgin Mary, in reference 
to whom such cases are far from uncommon ; but I do not 
recollect an instance so peculiar as this, wdiere every thing 
was centered in St. Peter, and where there was not a word, 
and apparently not even a thought, of the Deity. 

I therefore remarked to him, though with all gentleness, 
that he seemed to me to have substituted St. Peter for his 
Saviour and his God ; — that, as it seemed to me, all true 
religion required of us to show this religiousness of feeling 
toward Christ, to realize his presence, and seek his favor, and 
to shrink from the thought of doing any thing that could 
wound the love of so loving a Saviour — that he, instead of 
this, had exalted Peter to the place of Christ^ — had substituted 
the creature for the Creator — and thus practically had made 
Peter his Saviour and his God. 

He replied that he had no such intention — that such inten- 
tion would be the last thing in his thoughts — that he was an 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 189 

unlearned man, and could not enter into the niceties of such 
questions, but that he knew by experience that by devoting 
himself to St. Peter, and by thinking of him in the time of 
temptation, he was enabled to escape. And he was therefore 
sure that such devotedness on his part could not be deemed 
dishonoring to God. 

I endeavored to impress on him that it was a renunciation 
of all true and right-minded allegiance to our earthly sove- 
reign, either to dethrone him on the one hand, or to exalt a 
mere subject on the other, substituting him in the place of 
the sovereign, rendering to this subject the honor and the 
homage, and the obedience, and the loyalty, that rightfully 
belonged only to the sovereign — that the principle which he 
had expressed was thus practically dethroning the King of 
kings, by placing another, and that other a fallen and sinful 
creature, on the throne. I added, that he had touched one 
of the essential differences between the Church of England 
and the Church of Rome. The one always exalting the Sav- 
iour, the other exalting the saints ; the one worshiping the 
Creator, the other substituting the creature in his stead. 

I can not say that he seemed at all impressed with what I 
thus stated, yet he had listened with evident interest and re- 
spect, as, indeed, he habitually did whenever I conversed with 
him. So I remarked to him, that the success, or experience 
as he called it, of his system, might perhaps be accounted for 
by his thoughts being turned away from the temptation 
which he dreaded. I told him that my own habit was, that 
whenever I felt tempted to murmur, repine, or give way to 
any other temptation, I endeavored to bring my thoughts to 
some precious promise of the word of God, and then, by 
filling my mind with thoughts of the love or the gentleness, 
or the sufferings, or the death of Christ — filling my mind with 
the memory of his gracious words, and gentle invitations, 
and precious promises — filling my mind with thoughts of 
high hopes and a glorious future — I found that such thoughts 
of Christ shut out the thoughts of evil, and thus the tempta- 
tion was overcome by these holy thoughts, suggested by the 



190 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Holy Spirit, who was ever ready to strengthen the children 
of God. 

He seemed to me to hke this mode of dealing with tempta- 
tion ; and therefore, after pressing it somewhat more, I took 
occasion to ask him, how he could suppose St. Peter could 
know his thoughts and temptations, so as to help him in his 
time of need. If, I added, we come to God — to Christ, there 
is no difficulty. The omnipresence, the omniscience, and the 
omnipotence of Him, " whom the heaven of heavens can not 
contain," explain every thiug in reference to Him. But Peter 
was merely a man ; and though a sainted, that is, a holy man, 
yet he is now in heaven, and can not see the heart, or know 
the thoughts, or hear the prayers of his votaries on earth. 

He seemed at first to think lightly of this, as if he had al- 
ways thought it a matter of course, that the saint in heaven 
could know the thoughts and see the devotion and hear the 
prayers of his votaries on earth. His manner and his first 
natural expressions showed that he had always assumed this 
in his mind — that he had always taken it for granted — that a 
doubt of it had never passed over his thoughts. But after a 
few moments there seemed to pass over him a cloud, and he 
was silent and thoughtful. I saw the cause, and therefore 
urged the point further, saying that it seemed to me unreas- 
onable and impossible, that when men were praying in China, 
in Canada, in Egypt, in Kussia, in Italy, in England, to one 
and the same saint in heaven, and at one and the same time — 
when not a few but many millions were so engaged — it seem- 
ed, I said, unreasonable and impossible, that the saint should 
hear and understand them all. I added, that as prayer was 
not merely the utterance of words that could be heard, but 
was often the sigh and wish and aspiration of the soul, un- 
spoken and unheard, so it was impossible to see and know the 
devotedness or the worship of any votaries, without know- 
ing the secret thoughts, the minds, and hearts of all ; so as 
to be able to judge of the earnestness, the sincerity, the piety, 
the religiousness of the parties. There can be no use in pray- 
ing to the saint, imless he is able, in the height, and glory, 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 191 

and happiness of heaven, to see, and hear, and know all — not 
some, but all — that passes in the hearts and minds of men on 
earth. And he must also know all their trials, weaknesses, 
temptations, so as to know all the circumstances that aggra- 
vate their sins, and all the peculiarities that extenuate their 
failings. There is no such difficulty in reference to Him of 
whom it is said : " He searcheth the heart and trieth the 
reins ;" and again, " Thou knowest all things ;" and again, "All 
things are naked and open before the eyes of him with w^hom 
we have to do." This is true of the great Omniscient, Omnip- 
otent, and Omnipresent Spirit, and therefore we can come to 
him in prayer, in the fullest certainty of his being able both 
to hear and to answer. But as to any saint in heaven, finite 
creature as he must be, to enrobe him with such attributes, 
would be a worshiping the creature as the Creator — it would 
be an investino^ him with the essence of the Godhead. 

He w^as a man of too much intelligence not to see the im- 
portance of this consideration ; and he had too much sim- 
plicity not to acknowledge the difficulty that it threw in the 
way of his theory. But it was apparent from what he said 
that he had entertained some very high imaginings about the 
power and holiness and privileges of the saints, and was jeal- 
ous of an argument which went to strip them of that which 
was habitually associated in his mind with all his ideas of the 
saints. And he asked me earnestly, whether I really thought 
it possible they could be saints in glory and yet be unacquainted 
with all below. 

I replied, that I had evidently far higher ideas of the hap- 
piness and glory of the saints in heaven, than he seemed to 
entertain, and that it was he who was depriving them of their 
truest and loftiest privileges and blessedness. 

He seemed unable to understand this without explanation, 
and he asked me to explain myself, for he had always felt that 
the Church of Rome paid infinitely niore reverence to the 
saints than did the Protestant Church ; for that Protestants 
neither pray to them, nor to their pictures, nor kneel to them, 



102 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and seem to think no more of them than if there were no 
saints whatever in glory. 

I stated in reply, with every expression of kindness and 
gentleness to those who live in error, from having been long 
habituated to it from their earliest childhood, that Roman 
Catholics seemed to me to think too poorly, too meanly of the 
state of the saints, and that the Protestants seemed on the 
other hand to regard them in a far higher light. I said that 
we believed from some passages in the Holy Scriptures that 
the saints are in heaven — that they are in the company of 
Jesus Christ — that they are in the very presence of God — that 
there, amid a countless multitude of angels and of redeemed 
souls, they live in a state of profound adoration, and blessing 
and praise, ever looking upon God, praising his goodness, won- 
dering at his glories, and loving him as the object of all holy 
love. There they are in a state of the most perfect hohness, 
and in the enjoyment of an unutterable happiness. No cloud 
can even dim the brightness of God's countenance. No 
shadow can ever pass over their thoughts to saddem them. 
No thought or no vision can ever come over their happy and 
blessed minds that could impair their perfect happiness and 
perfect blessedness, for there all was happiness and blessed- 
ness, amid scenes of the purest holiness, and if ever there 
were thoughts of the world and the scenes and the homes 
they had left forever, it was only to make them more full of 
thankfulness and gratitude to Him who had redeemed them, 
and washed them in His blood, and had purchased for them 
this glorious inheritance, so that their whole mind is filled 
with the thought of God, and their whole heart filled with the 
love of God. 

I then read several passages of Scripture, as Rev. vii. 9-1 7 ; 
also xxi. 3-5 ; also xxii. 1-5. And after we had talked 
pleasantly and profitably on the glorious hopes of the Chris- 
tian, I asked him whether he did not think that we Protestant-s 
held very high and lofty ideas of the glory and blessedness of 
the saints ? He seemed to feel it, for he had entered very 
fully into all I said. 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 193 

I therefore took the occasion to say that I thought it would 
mar and injure all this happiness, if the saints were to see 
and hear, and know all that was passing on earth. K a father 
or a mother could look down, and see and know all the sins, 
the follies, the sorrows, and the shame of their children — ^if 
they could see and know all the troubles and miseries, and 
disasters that befall them, it certainly would cloud and darken 
their brightest hours even in heaven. If a husband or a wife, 
who had lived holy on earth, and was now sainted in. the 
skies, was destined to see and know the after-career of the 
one who was so long the partner of every thought, and the 
sharer of every feeling, and the companion of every pleasure ; 
and to see and know themselves forgotten and unthought-of, 
and altogether unsorrowed and unwept — to see and know 
that all love was vanished, and infidelity come in — and all 
vows and promises broken and gone — and to see and know 
their place in the home, in the thoughts, in the affections, oc- 
cupied by others, it certainly would be no source of increase 
to the happiness of their heaven. It will not be reasonable 
to suppose, that the saints in heaven see and know only that 
portion of the things of those they have left on earth, which 
is pleasant and flattering ; they must also be supposed to see 
those that are unpleasant and painful. If they can hear our 
prayers to be delivered from sickness, or sorrow, or suffering, 
they can also hear our sighing under sorrow ; our groaning 
under suffering ; and our complaining under sickness. If they 
can see us in our hours of devotion, they can see us in our 
hours of recklessness ; and if they can read the holy thoughts 
of our hearts, they can scan the unholy feelings of our bodies. 
If they can look on us in our acts of prayer, they can also 
look upon us in our works of sin ; and, I added, that when we 
consider that in every one of us, even the holiest and the best, 
there is always more of evil than good ; more of sin than 
holiness ; more to be deplored than praised : we must con- 
clude, that it would not be for the happiness of the saints in 
heaven, that they should be able to see or know what is pass- 
ing on earth among those whom they left behind them. 



194 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

My companion had listened with earnest attention, while I 
dwelt, at some length, on this point ; and although at first he 
said nothing, I yet felt that my argimient was taking effect on 
his mind. It appeared as if his feeling was against me, while 
his judgment was with me ; so I reminded him, that our con- 
versation had very much arisen out of his stating that one way 
in which he kept himself from the commission of sin, was re- 
flecting how much his sin vrould grieve Saint Peter. Surely, 
if Saint Peter is grieved at every sin committed thus hj all 
that believe in him, he can not but have more grief than joy 
in his heavenly state. It must be heart-breaking for him to 
witness all the alienation from God, all the departures from 
holiness, all the carelessness about the soul, all the ingratitude 
toward the Saviour, in short, all the folly, the \ice, the unholi- 
ness, the worldliness, the unbelief, the sins, that cloud and 
darken our lives. On the other hand, if we shut out all this, 
so sad and so painful to a holy mind, and so inexpressibly sad 
and painful to those who are amid the holiness of heaven — if 
we shut out all this from their knowledge, and regard them as 
ever living in the presence of God, ever circling around the 
throne above, ever dwelling with the Saviour, ever associating 
with angelic spirits and redeemed souls, ever admiring his 
glories, wondering at his love, and praising his goodness, and 
thus living all holy and happy, without one thought to mar 
their holiness or dim their happiness, then indeed we have 
a far hio-her idea of the state of the saints above, than in 
supposing them to have any cognizance of the things on 
earth. We are told in the Holy Scriptures, that' Josiah 
was removed from this life, in order that he might not 
know the evils that were about to befall the land. This im- 
plies that our removal to heaven removes us altogether, not 
only from the affairs of this present world, but also from the 
knowledge of them. And this seems essential to all real 
happiness for man. 

He seemed to assent to all this, and said that it certainly 
gave a very high idea of the state and the happiness of the 
saints in glory ; adding that it must pain them much to see 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 195 

or know the wickedness of men's hearts, and the many sins of 
the best among us. 

I then remarked, that he could thus perceive that we Prot- 
estants had not less exalted notions of the saints, than had 
Roman Catholics. We regard them as in the highest holiness 
and happiness. And we desire and pray to be able to imitate 
them, and follow them in the example of their holiness, but 
we do not pray to them, because we think that prayer belongs 
exclusively to God, and also because we think the saints can 
not hear our prayers, and there is no use in praying to them, 
if they can not hear us, 

After a pause of some duration, in which I left his mind to 
work on what had been said, he broke it by saying that it was 
plain from the words of the Scriptures, that the saints knew 
when we repented, for that the Blessed Saviour had said, there 
was joy in heaven in the presence of the angels of God, over 
the sinner that repents ; so that, if they can know the repent- 
ance, they can know the prayers he has made to them. He 
asked me how I could explain that statement, consistently 
with the views I had expressed. 

I said at once, that the words of our Lord had reference to 
the angels, and not to the saints — had reference to those an- 
gels, who are the ministers and messengers of his will through- 
out the world, and who are expressly said to be " ministering 
spirits, sent forth to minister unto them, that are the heirs of 
salvation." It may be reasonable therefore to suppose that it 
is necessary for them in passing to and fro through the world 
to know some things respecting those on earth. But this is a 
widely different thing from the saints, who are not angelic 
spirits, but men who have been glorified in heaven ; and al- 
though the children of God after the resurrection will be equal 
to the angels, yet it will be in holiness and happiness, and love 
of God, and not in office. 

He saw this distinction clearly, and acknowledged its pro- 
priety, and added, that he did not remember having heard it 
pointed out before. 

I then stated, that although that was the ordinary answer 



196 EVENINGS WITH XHE ROMANISTS. 

given to this argument as denved from the particular Scrip- 
ture to which he had referred, yet it was by no means the 
best or fittest answer — that the whole passage was sadly mis- 
understood, and perverted by many who ought to know better 
— and that, if he would bear with me for a few minutes, while 
I read and explained the place, I thought he would agree with 
me as to its real meaning, for that I never knew a really de- 
vout and religious mind that did not at once embrace that 
meaning when laid before it. 

I then reminded him that the place to w^hich he had refer- 
red, occurred in the fifteenth of the Gospel according to St. 
Luke ; and that it occurred in a parable, of which there 
were three, all in the same chapter and all illustrating the 
same truth — a truth of the greatest encouragement and com- 
fort to the believer. That truth Avas the joy and rejoicing it 
brought to the heart of God to receive the repentant and re- 
turning sinner. In the language of Holy Scripture, our God 
is described as compassionating, yearning over and loving the 
poor unhappy sinner, and then rejoicing when he sees him 
reflecting and returning to him. This is the truth — the joy 
of God — which our Lord is teaching in each of these three 
parables. 

The first parable is that of the shepherd and the stray sheep, 
and it occurs at verse 4. The great and principal object of 
this parable is to show the yearning and carefulness of the 
shepherd for the sheep which he had lost, and his extreme 
joy at recoveiing it again. And as Jesus Christ is " the good 
shepherd," and " the great Bishop and Shepherd of our souls," 
so the object of the parable was to illustrate his joy in receiv- 
ing again the wandering sinner, who had returned to the fold 
he had left ; and to make this his joy the more apparent, he is 
described as telling it to all his friends, and desiring them to 
share in his rejoicing, illustrating as it w^ere, our Lord pro- 
claiming throughout the heavens above, the glad tidings of 
the lost sinner ha\ang repented and returned. " I say unto 
you that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that 
repenteth." The parable shows the joy of the shepherd 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 197 

rather than the joy of the friends, and so it is designed to il- 
lustrate the joy of God in the presence of all the angels of 
heaven, rather than merely the joy of the angels — the joy of 
onr God, rather than the joy of his angels. 

The second parable is at verse 8. The object here is evi- 
dent, to show the esteem and value which this woman put on 
her piece of silver, which she had lost ; — to show the careful- . 
ness and anxiety with which she sought it again — and her 
great delight at having found it ; calling to all her friends and 
neighbors, and teUing them of her joy, and asking them to 
rejoice with her. There can be no doubt that the intention 
of this was, to illustrate the love of the Saviour, yearning over 
and seeking the lost and wandering sinner ; and so rejoicing 
at seeing his repentance, as that He proclaims the event to all 
the heavens, that the angelic spirits might hear and rejoice 
likewise. " Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the pres- 
ence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." 
Thus it is a joy in the presence of the angels, that is, a joy of 
God ; ndt so much a joy of angels as a joy of God in their 
presence, that our Lord desires to describe. 

The last of those remarkable parables is one universally 
known and understood; it is at verse 11. The point of this 
parable, taken in connection with the preceding ones, is where 
the Father is described as seeing his returning son, while yet 
afar oft* running to meet him, and kissing him, and welcoming 
him lovingly as if he had never erred ; and never even utter- 
ing a word of rebuke or unkindness ; being so full of joy and 
rejoicing at receiving his prodigal and erring child, now repent- 
ant and returning. His telling his neighbors and friends is 
designed to show the greatness of his joy. There can be no 
mistake as to the purport of all this : it is impossible to read 
it without feeling that all is designed to illustrate the loving 
and fatherly heart of God, yearning after a lost and erring 
soul, and rejoicing over his repentance — " He desire th not the 
death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his sins 
and live." The parable beautifully illustrates this yearning 
and loving spirit of our Father in heaven ; and as beautifully 



198 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

depicts the joy and happiness it brings to His heart, when the 
sinner turns from his sins and seeks again the bosom of his 
God. But it is apparent in all this, that the object of our 
Lord in the parable, was not to represent the knowledge or 
the love or the joy merely of the angels, but of that w^hich is 
incomparably more important to us, namely, the knowledge 
and the love and the joy of God himself. 

Having thus gone through each of the parables, and my 
companion having in a very lively way shown his assent to 
all I said, as I spoke of each of them, I endeavored to impress 
him with what was my own feeling ; namely, that we lose all 
the real beauty and power of these parables, when we look on 
them as merely designed to illustrate the joy of angels over 
the repentant sinner. It is the joy of God himself — the joy 
of the Great and Ineffable One — the joy of our heavenly 
Father himself, it is this which the parables are designed to 
illustrate. And this is a well-spring of comfort and encourage- 
ment. It is nothing — comparatively nothing, to be told that 
the angels rejoice at the repentance of the sinner, though that 
is most true, and the parables imply it ; but it is every thing 
to know that our God himself so loves us, so yearns over us, 
so watches us, so longs for our repentance that He, even He, 
rejoices to receive us ; and so rejoices, that He shows that joy 
in the presence of all the angelic inhabitants of heaven, and 
invites them to share in his joy. There is no comfort, I added, 
and no encouragement w^hether in life or in death, like feehng 
in our hearts that God loves us, and rejoices to be gracious 
to us. 

He fully entered into this feeling : he could conceive, he 
said, of nothing beyond it, and his whole countenance showed 
the reality of his words ; but after a short pause he seemed 
doubtfully to shake his head, and he said it seemed too much, 
too high, too far beyond all that a poor sinner could hope or 
dream of. He had, he added, never dared to look so high, 
and had always felt that it was wonderful that even the holy 
angels, or the blessed saints should think of us. And surely, 
he said, the blessed saints, though now in glory, w^ere once 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 199 

like ourselves on earth, and could feel for us, and feel witli us. 
It is true tliey were a thousand times more good, and holy, 
and full of grace ; but still they were human creatures, and 
they may perhaps be the more able to feel with us, and it is 
therefore that Roman Catholics come to them, and pray them 
to pray for us, that God may through their intercession grant 
us what we fear ourselves to ask of Him. \Ve feel that we 
are not worthy of coming to God, or of being heard by Him 
and therefore we humbly approach Him, through his blessed 
saints. 

I said that I was quite aware of that, but that as I had said 
before, there was no use praying to those who could not hear 
us, and could not know our hearts or thoughts or prayers, so 
I looked on it as a very great error to pray to these saints 
who can not hear, instead of praying to that God who can hear 
us. And I reminded him that he had failed to show that the 
saints can hear, or know, or see any thing about us, and that 
the parables to which he had referred me, had been seen to 
involve nothing of the kind ; so I again asked him to tell me 
how they can hear our prayers ; how it was possible that any 
saint, even St. Peter, to whom he habitually prayed, or even 
the Virgin Mary, who vfas so much the object of prayer in 
the Church of Rome, could hear the prayers of their many 
votaries, offered in so many lands. With an iniinite God we 
see no difficulty. His omnipotence, omniscience, and omni- 
presence accomplish all ; but with finite beings like the saints 
all this is impossible. It is against reason to believe it, and 
there is nothing; in revelation to sanction it. 

He said that it might be, that though the saints could not 
of themselves know our prayers, yet God might reveal them 
to them ; that thus it might be as in the parable, God calling 
to them, telling them, and then asking them to rejoice with 
Him. They might thus know our devotion, our praying, and 
all our reverence to them. 

I answered that this was quite possible. when taken gener- 
ally, as that when God expressed and showed his joy, at the 
repentance of a sinner, the angels and saints in heaven might 



200 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

see his joy and know the cause ; but this was a different thing 
altogether from their hearing our prayers, seeing our devo- 
tions, and knowing our hearts. But besides this, this idea 
could not help his object. He supposed that God told our 
prayers to the saints, and that the saints revealed them back 
aofain to God — that He revealed our wants to the saints, and 
that the saints revealed them back again to God ! This was 
not approaching God through the medium of the saints, but it 
was approaching the saints through the medium of God ; or, 
to express the matter in another and more theological manner, 
it was not coming to God through the saints, as mediators of 
intercession with him, but it was coming to the saints through 
God, as a mediator of intercession with them ! I added that 
I had often heard all this from devout and religious members 
of the Church of Eome, in their endeavors to excuse and jus- 
tify their practice of praying to the saints in glory, but that it 
seemed to me to pass all the bounds of the reasonable. It 
seemed to throw rather an air of the ridiculous over the prac- 
tice ; for whereas you, yourself, have stated that you devote 
yourself and present your prayers to St. Peter, asking of him 
to pray to God for you — to intercede with God for you — to 
tell God your wants, and obtain them for you — after all it ap- 
pears that it is not St. Peter who tells your wants to God, but 
God who must first tell them to St. Peter ; and as for your 
prayers, it is not St. Peter who conveys them to God, but it is 
God who conveys them to St. Peter. And thus according to 
this hypothesis, your prayers must after all come first to God, 
he then reveals them to St. Peter, and then St. Peter prays 
them back again to God ! Surely you do not think this idea 
justified, either by reason or by revelation. 

But — he asked emphatically — would you not approach an 
earthly king or queen, through the medium of their favorites 
and courtiers ? you would not presume to enter at once into 
the royal presence and make your request ; in the same way 
ought we not — is it not more humble and reverential, to ap- 
proach our God, the great God of Heaven, through those angels 
and saints who are his favorites and friends ? 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 201 

I answered by saying tliat even supposing his principle was 
sound and good, wliicli I did not think it was, still he himself 
did not act on it, nor did his system base itself on it. His 
system was, to offer a prayer to a saint, which that saint could 
not hear — that God, the great God of Heaven, heard it first, 
and then told it to the saint, and that then the saint told it 
back again to God. According to this system you always go 
first to God, you always first approach God himself, and not 
his saints or angels. It is as if you had a petition to present 
to the king, and wished to present it through one of his favor- 
ites, but this favorite does not hear you, while the king him- 
self does hear you ; and therefore your system supposes the 
king to present your petition to his favorite, and then this 
favorite presents it back again on your behalf to the king ! 
Thus, I added, your own system is a direct contradiction of 
your own argument. 

He seemed much perplexed at this, and evidently could not 
see his way out of the labyrinth. And he was a man too 
honest and true, and too much in earnest as to religion, to 
make a mere effort at getting over a difficulty ; so he endeav- 
ored to put the point in another light. He asked me whether 
I did not think the saints in glory were constantly praying for 
us on earth, at least that they were willing to pray for us ; — 
that they were true and loving friends and brothers to us, and 
were always ready and willing to pray to God for us. And if 
this was the case, it could be no harm, no sin, to ask them to 
pray for us — and that this was all they meant by the ora pro 
nobis, the prai/ for us, in the Church of Rome. 

I reminded him that they offered much more than a simple 
ora pro nobis — that they prayed of the saints for grace, for 
holiness, for piety, for sanctification, for devotion, for faith, for 
salvation — that all these petitions were embodied in several of 
their prayers, in their standard books of devotion. And that 
it was something more than a simple ora pro nobis, a simple 
pray for us. But, I added, that even supposing this were all, 
and supposing you have a pious friend and Christian brother 
in America,' or in Asia, one who loves your soul, and con- 

9* 



202 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

stantly prays for you ; do you think you would be acting ra- 
tionally or Christianly to go on your knees, and in this Europe, 
pray to a man in America or Asia to pray to God for you, 
when you are aware he can not hear you, or even know that 
you are praying to him or any one else ? If he could hear 
you, if he could know it, if by letter or otherwise, he could be 
aware of it, there would be something reasonable in it ; but so 
long as he can neither hear or know it, the thing must be 
most unreasonable. 

He felt this fully, and acknowledged it. He had many 
friends and relations who had emigrated to America. He had 
sometimes contemplated going there himself, and therefore he 
was able fully to appreciate the allusion. I therefore took the 
occasion to sti^engthen my argument by asking him to repeat 
for me the Confiteor^ or form of confession, as contained in 
their liturgy. 

He at once complied, repeating the words. 

I then observed, that in that form he had made confession 
of sin to God, to the Virgin Mary, to St. Peter, and to other 
saints, all alike ; he made no distinction among them. I added, 
that I could understand his making confession to God, who 
could hear his words and know his heart ; — that I could also 
understand his confession to the priest, who could hear his 
words, though he could not see his heart ; but that I could 
not comprehend his making confession to Mary, to Peter, or 
to the other saints, who could not possibly hear his words or 
read his thoughts. Where, I asked, could be the'use of con- 
fessing to those who can not hear you ? 

He stated frankly that he was unable to answer me — that 
the idea of the saints not knowing our confessions and prayers 
had never occurred to him, and that he had always taken it 
as a matter of course, as if it were a part of their blessedness 
in their state of glory. He had always thought thus ; but he 
acknowledged he knew -no way of explaining how or in what 
manner it was. He then stated, that he had always practiced 
it as taught in his Church, on the ground of its humility, as 
becoming a poor sinner like himself, to be humble, as unwill- 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 203 

ing to come presumptuously and confidently into tlie presence 
of the great God ; and feeling that the blessed Virgin and St 
Peter having been, like himself, once on earth, and living 
human lives, and knowing human infiimities, would have a 
sympathy and compassion — a sort of fellow-feehng for him — 
he could go to them more comfortably, and with more confi- 
dence than he could go into the presence of the great God. 
He said that he feared God, but that he had confidence in the 
blessed Mary and St. Peter — that there was something in his 
heart — a feeling which he could not w^ell explain — which led 
him to this practice, and which was met and satisfied by it ; it 
seemed, so to speak, natural ; more natural to go to them than 
to God, and they would intercede for him and help him. 

I said, in answ^er to this, that there were many wants, 
desires, and yearnings in our nature that our religion ought 
to answer and satisfy. And that it ahvays seemed to me as a 
strong internal evidence for Christianity that it recognized 
and satisfied these cravings of the soul or inner nature of the 
man ; that it appeared to me as if the feeling he had expressed, 
namely, an expectation of sympathy and help from the saints, 
as being of the same nature with himself, instead of from one 
so infinitely removed above and beyond him, as was God 
himself, was a feeling of this very kind — a want" or yearning 
that seems natural to us, and seems to require something in 
true religion to meet and satisfy it. I then remarked, that 
among the theological systems of the ancient heathens of 
Greece and Rome, this want was met and satisfied, in a way, 
by the enrollment of their great or useful men among the 
demigods, as Esculapius, Romulus, Bacchus, and a thousand 
others. It was supposed that the Dii Majores^ the great 
gods, as Jupiter, etc., were too much above and beyond the 
reach of thought, or interest, or sympathy for mortals ; and 
therefore, men had recourse to the Dii Minor es, or demi-gods, 
w^ho had once been men on earth hke themselves ; and who 
could be supposed capable of the requisite amount of sympa- 
thy for them ; and who, therefore, could and woifld stand 



204 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

between them and the great gods, and become their mediators 
and intercessors. 

My friend here broke in with a remark, as natural as it was 
true, namely, that this was precisely the same as the practice 
of the Church of Rome. He said it was wonderful how 
heathens, as they were without any light or teaching from the 
Church, yet living before the Church itself was founded, had 
been able to see this truth, and to imitate it beforehand. It 
seemed to him that there must have been some glimpses of 
true religion among them. The Jews had their sacrifices of 
blood, going before the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ. 
And they had the supper of the Passover going before the 
blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But they had an 
express command and revelation for these, while the heathens 
of Greece and Rome, w^ho had no such command or revela- 
tion, had their demi-gods to intercede for them w'ith the great 
gods, long before the church had canonized the saints in glory 
to be our intercessors, our mediators of intercession with God. 
He asked me whether I could account for this. 

I was not a little amused at the mixture of truth and error 
exhibited in these remarks ; and could not fail being impressed 
with the simplicity with which they were made. I said wdth 
as much kindness and delicacy as possible, when about to 
utter truths that were not likely to be acceptable, that the 
feeling of a certain want, or desire, or yearning, in our inner 
nature to which he had before adverted, was felt, naturally 
felt, among the heathens as much as among Christians ; and 
that they met, or tried to meet, and satisfy this feeling in 
very much the same w^ay, at least in w^ays suitable to and con- 
sistent with their respective systems. The heathens selected 
a number of the greatest, best, and most useful men, and en- 
rolled them among the demi-gods, and regarded them as their 
mediators of intercession. The Church of Rome also selected 
those who were the most remarkable among her members for 
rehgion, or zeal, or usefulness, and canonized them, placing 
lixem in 4he calendar of the saints, and having recourse to 
them as mediators of intercession. The two systems seemed 



PEAYBR TO THE SAINTS, 205 

one and the same in principle. They were similar attempts to 
supply the yearnings and cravings of nature, to which we had 
already adverted. But, I added, that I could not consider 
them as two diiferent systems, but only as one and the same, 
regarding one as a continuation of the other \ — that however 
hard it might seem to bear upon the Church of Eome, yet I 
felt that the system of that Church was only a continuation of 
the heathen system^ — ^that, instead of meeting the wants of the 
soul as revealed Christianity meets it, she permitted the old 
system of the heathens to continue ; transferring to the saints 
the worship previously paid to the demi-gods, and substituting 
Peter, and Paul, and Catherine, and Mary, for a Romulus, or 
a Mercury, or a Minerva, or a Juno. 

I here took the opportunity of stating to my companion, 
who I knew loved the broad, and plain, and satisfying truths 
of the Gospel, that revelation had recognized that evident and 
palpable feeling of our inner nature, to which we had been 
referring — and had answered it in the fullest and only satisfy- 
ing way. Revelation as contained in the Holy Scriptures, 
assumes that the natural man, the unconverted man, ordin- 
arily looks on God as a God to be feared — that he generally 
looks on the attributes of greatness, omnipotence, justice, holi- 
ness the attributes that invest Him with that which makes 
Him to be feared rather than loved. Revelation then describes 
God as loving the world, so loving it as to give his Son for it, 
and then describes that Son as all gentleness, kindness, com- 
passion, love, thus representing God to us in the opposite 
aspect, investing Him with all those characteristics, which 
make Him to be loved rather than feared. Revelation thus 
meets the inner craving, to which we have adverted, by show- 
ing God in a new and more accessible hght, and then places 
before us that grand truth that in the Son of God, in Him 
who^has loved us and given himself for us, in Him who has 
died< the death, even the death of the cross for us, in Him who 
became man, and lived, and suffered, and died as man in our 
stead and on -our behalf, in Him we have a Mediator — ^both a 
Jilediatprtpf fe4e?nption, having died for us, and a mediator of 



209 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

intercession interceding for us ; — and wlio as liaving been a 
raan, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, can sympathize 
with us. Here is one who has loved us as none other ever 
loved us — can sympathize with us as none other can sympa- 
thize, and can efiectually intercede for us as none can else. 
And He, emphatically He, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd, 
as well as the glorified Saviour, is the One who answers and 
satisfies this want and yearning of our nature. The language 
of Revelation is strong and explicit on this point, " There is 
one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man. 
Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. ii. 5. Again, " Although there be that 
are called gods, as there be gods many and lords many, yet 
to us there is but one God, even the Father, and one Lord 
Jesus Christ." — 1 Cor. viii. 5. Again, " I write unto you that 
ye sin not, and if any man sin, we have an advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." — John. ii. 2. This is the 
unvarying language of the Holy Scriptures. And it has been 
the sin of the Church of Rome, that while she sees and recog- 
nizes the want, and desire, and yearning of the soul for some 
mediator to intercede with God, she has not directed her 
children to Him whom Revelation has revealed, but has 
allowed the old mythological system of the heathens to con- 
tinue. Instead of uprooting that system, and proclaiming the 
truth of Revelation, she has continued and consecrated the 
system of demi-gods, by the canonization of saints, and point- 
ing to them as our Mediator of intercession. 

My friend was in no degree hurt or irritated by this. Our 
conversation continued but a short time longer, partaking less 
of controversy, and touching on truths common to us both. 
We parted, he remarking that although I was the most de- 
cided Protestant he had ever met, and had said most aofainst 
his Church, yet he always found that he was able to agree more 
with me than with any one else ; and that he could not ac- 
count for this, but that such was the fact ; — upon which I 
remarked in leaving him, that it arose from our both being 
really in earnest about the salvation of souls, rather than the 
exaltation of Churches, and that there were truths which would 



PRAYEU TO THE SAINTS. 207 

yet work their way to his heart, as they had done to mine. 
And that I had too much experience of death-beds not to 
know that those were the truths that alone sustained, com- 
forted, and encouraged the dying man. Jesus Christ is the all 
and the only one, and I was sure that he would himself yet 
be brought sooner or later to feel and know it. 

I added, that my parting word with him should be, that 
whenever he needed sympathy in heaven — whenever his soul 
was in need of the comforts of sympathy in heaven, he had 
only to remember Him who became man in order, among 
other things, to manifest his capacity for sympathizing with 
us. He is even now, while we are speaking of Him, thinking 
of us, and as " the Great High Priest of our profession," inter- 
ceding for us. I then opened my Bible and read — " Seeing 
then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the 
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 
For we have not an high priest which can not be touched with 
the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted 
like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly 
unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find 
grace to help in time of need. For every high priest taken 
from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to 
God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Who 
can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are 
out of the way ; for that he himself also is compassed with 
infirmity." — Hebrews iv. 14-16 ; v. 1, 2. And so we parted. 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 

The Value of Prayer rightly offered— The Litany to the Saints— How ascertained 
that all these are Saints of Grod — Whether in Heaven, or Purgatory, or Hell — 
Canonization by the Pope — Canonization, an affair of Formalities and of Money 
—Expenses of Canonization — How the True Saints can know the Hearts or hear 
the Prayers of their Votaries — Whether Eoman Catholics only ask the Prayers 
of the Saints — Confessions of Sins to the Saints — Whether this Practice he en- 
forced in the Church of Eome, or only recommended — ^Essential before Absolu- 
tion and before Communion. 

Another conversation on the same subject was carired on 
in a very different spirit, and with a very different person. He 
was one well-known for his virulence and violence against 
every thing connected with the Holy Scriptures or with Prot- 
estantism. It was thought that he was connected with some 
of the illegal societies that kept the country in constant ex- 
citement and disturbance, and certainly he was a bold and 
violent man. But he had considerable influence among a large 
class of the population, and was the leader in all the popular 
political movements of the day in his immediate neighbor- 
hood. He was thus a favorite with the priesthood of the 
Church of Eome, of whom he was a most zealous supporter, 
and by whom he was constantly employed as a convenient in- 
strument for spreading agitation among the people. 

This man took a very active part in checking the circula- 
tion of the Scriptures, and often succeeded in turning the minds 
of the people from religious inquiry, by entering on political 
questions, and thus supplanting religion by politics. At this 
period, large numbers of the Roman Catholics, sometimes so 
many as twenty at a time, used to meet together in one of 
their houses — used to open the sacred volume — read a chap- 
ter, and proceed to converse over its meaning. This system 



I 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 209 

was spreading a knowledge of the Holy Scriptures rapidly 
among the people. A spirit of inquiry was growing and ex- 
tending, and the numbers who withdrew from the Church of 
Rome, showed to the priesthood that their fears of the circu- 
lation of the Scriptures were not without cause. Counsel 
was wisely taken. This man and two or three others, alto- 
gether under the inliuence of the priesthood, made it their 
business to visit all these little meetings for Scripture reading, 
and before the sacred volume was opened, they procured some 
newspapers containing the speeches of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. 
Sheil, and others of the popular orators of the day. At that 
time, these celebrated men spoke once a week at the meetings 
of the Catholic Association, and dilated on the wrongs and 
sufferings, real or imaginary, of the Roman Catholics of Ire- 
land. The reading of these speeches gradually took the place 
of reading the Scriptures, and conversations on politics soon 
were substituted for conversations on religion. 

The fearless, and indeed fierce manner, in which this man 
followed the example of the priesthood in denouncing the 
persons who had withdrawn from the Church of Rome, led to 
some of them rather hastily accepting in my name a challenge 
from him to defend the principles of Protestantism. They 
had arranged the place, the hour, the subject, before I was 
aware of it, and though I had an extreme repugnance to any 
communication with this person, I saw there was no way of 
escape, to the satisfaction of the people. 

We met in the house of one of the Protestants, as he said 
he could not enter that of a convert or apostate. The subject 
was — Prayer to saints^ and there were some thirty persons 
present. 

I thought, from his manner, which was very constrained 
and nervous, but extremely respectful to myself personally, 
that he would have been as glad as myself, to have escaped 
the meeting. 

I commenced by endeavoring to give a gentle, earnest, and 
solemn tone to the meeting, by a few words on the importance 
of salvation to all, and on the value and comfort of prayer to 



210 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

our Father, and our God. I said that the life of a Christian, 
was a life of prayer. When the Almighty revealed himself 
to Ananias, and would express the convei'sion of Paul, He 
did so in the emphatic words, " Behold he prayeth !" When 
the Lord Jesus Christ would exhort his followers, it was in 
the simple words, " Watch unto prayer ;" and when his 
apostle desired to see his disciples walking in the faith, he 
does so in the expressive v/ords, "Pray without ceasing." 
The breath of the spiritual life is prayer, and just as the Le- 
vitical priest within the holy place, offered his incense till its 
perfumed vapor filled the sanctuary, above, beneath, around, 
so as that the very atmosphere he breathed, was an atmos- 
phere of incense, so the child of God, the member of the 
" holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to 
God, by Jesus Christ," 1 Peter ii. 5, is to sustain his spiritual 
life, breathing that which vras typified by incense — breathing 
the atmosphere of prayer. I was very desirous to impress 
this spirit on all present, before our strife should commence, 
I said, that the soul that has lived in prayer, will need no ar- 
guments from me to induce to high thoughts of the sv/eet- 
ness, the comfort, the happiness of prayer. I added, that the 
more we value it, and the more important we feel it, in the 
very same degree is it important that we sliould pray aright, 
and especially that we should pray to Him "who heareth 
prayer," — who hath commanded us to pray, and who, in ask- 
ing for our prayers, declares himself a "jealous God, who 
will not give his glory to another." Our great principle is 
that prayer is one great element of that worship that belongs 
to God — that which both nature and revelation alike demand, 
as the homage of the creature to his Creator ; and as such, 
it should be rendered to the Creator alone — not to the 
creature, but to the Creator alone. The transition from this 
to our subject was easy. 

In the Church of Rome, a different principle has been 
adopted. She has recommended the offering of prayer, not 
to the Creator alone but to the creature also — not to God 
alone, but also to the angelic creation, and to the redeemed 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 211 

in heaven — to the ano^els and the saints above. And I sug-- 
gested that it would be a convenient mode of commencement 
if our friend would begin, by repeating the Litany to the 
saints. I said there was no necessity to repeat the whole ; if 
he began with St. Lawrence and St. Vincent it would be 
enough. 

The suggestion w^as acceptable to all, and he began, and 
most of the Roman Catholics present repeated it aloud with 
him. 

St. Lawrence, pray for us. 

St. Vincent, pray for us. 

St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, pray for us. 

St. John and St. Paul, pray for us. 

St. Cosmos and St. Damian, pray for us. 

St. Gervase and St. Protase, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us. 

St. Sylvester, pray for us. 

St. Gregory, pray for us. 

St. Ambrose, pray for us. - 

St. Augustine, pray for us. 

St. Jerome, pray for us. 

St. Martin, pray for us. 

St. Nicholas, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Bishops and Confessors, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Doctors, pray for us. 

St. Anthony, pray for us. 

St. Benedict, pray for us. 

St. Bernard, pray for us. 

St. Dominick, pray for us. 

St. Francis, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Priests and Levites, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Monks and Hermits, pray for us. 

St. Mary Magdalen, pray for us. 

St. Agatha, pray for us. 

St. Lucy, pray for us. 

St. Cecilia, pray for us. 

St. Catherine, pray for us. 



212 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

St. Anastasia, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Virgins and Widows, pray for us. 

All ye Saints of God, make intercession for us. 

The repeating of this Litany had a striking effect on the orig- 
inal Protestants present, who had never before heard it. They 
were for the most part earnest and religious men, who could 
not associate prayer in their minds with any one but God. 
They felt very fully that there was " one God, and one Mediator 
between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
They knew well the words " If any man sin, we have an Ad- 
vocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." — 1 John 
ii. 2. And they believed him " able to save to the uttermost 
all that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to 
make intercession for them." — Heb. vii. 25. They were there- 
fore not a little startled at a series of Mediators and Interces- 
sors, whose very names they had never heard. They showed 
this in their manner. 

I then remarked, amid the most profound attention, that 
our friend had recited a portion of the Litany, prapng to a 
number of persons to pray for us ; there were the names of 
men and the names of women — the names of persons of 
whom some of us had never heard, and of whom the most 
informed among us knew but little. JSTow I vvished to ask 
how our friend knew that these persons were saints in heaven ? 
We all felt of course, that if these persons are not saints in 
heaven, but devils in hell, or disembodied spirits any where 
else, it would be idolatrous to pray to them at all. And there- 
fore I ask hoio he knows that they are really saints in 
Heaven ? 

He said at once, with confidence, that they were persons 
who lived in the faith of Jesus Christ, and died in the com- 
munion of the only true Church— the Church of Eome — that 
having lived holy lives, and done good works, and wrought 
miracles on earth, they are now rewarded by being translated 
into heaven. And being dear to God on account of their re- 
ligion, their prayers and intercessions for us are effectual. 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 213 

And therefore we pray to them in order to secure their inter- 
est and intercession with God in our favor. 

I reminded him that this was not an answer to my ques- 
tion — that I had asked, how he knew that all these persons 
were saints in Heaven ? The question was important, be- 
cause it was held in the Church of Rome that when persons 
die, the wicked are cast into hell, and the righteous are sent 
to purgatory. Now if the righteous are sent to purgatory un- 
til they have suffered all that was due to their sins, how does 
our friend know that these persons are yet out of Purgatory 
or are yet in heaven ? 

This question seemed greatly to interest, and indeed to 
amuse our whole party, except our friend who was called to 
answer it. He was perfectly perplexed, but after some time 
he said that the saints never went to Purgatory— that they 
had merit enouo:h, and sometimes more than enouo-h for their 
own salvation, and to atone for all their sins, and that there- 
fore it was their privilege, like the martyrs, to go at once to 
heaven when they die. 

Still, I answered, my question remains, namely how is it 
known that these persons whose names are in the litany, are 
really saints ? What authority do you give me for the fact ? 
You tell me that these persons are saints. I ask — how do 
you know that ? You tell me also that it is the privilege of 
saints to go at once to heaven, without staying in Purgatory, I 
ask — how do you know that ? How has it been ascertained, 
that all these persons are now in heaven ? The importance 
of this inquiry will be freely admitted, when it is considered 
that it must be confessed by all parties to be " a fond and vain 
thing " to pray to those who are not saints — to pray to those 
who are not in heaven. And, therefore, we ask — How has it 
been ascertained that all these persons are really saints ? 
How has it been ascertained that all these persons are now in 
heaven ? To answer this inquiry by saying — " They lived holy 
lives on earth, and, therefore, are now holy saints in heaven" 
is not suflScient ; for we are liable to be deceived. We can 
only look to " the outward appearance ; the Lord looketh to 



214 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the heart." We know that " ihe heart is deceitful above all 
things, and desperately wicked : Who can know it ?" Y\q 
know that it is God only can " search the heart and try the 
reins." And, therefore, we feel, that it is He alone can know 
who are His saints. '' The Lord knoweth them that are His." 
There is so much deception, so much false profession, so much 
hypocrisy in the world, that, though we may hope and wish, 
we yet can never assuredly know, who are the saints of God. 
It may be found, hereafter, that some shall have a throne in 
heaven whom we had believed to be in hell ; and that some 
shall mourn in hell whom we had believed to be in heaven. 
We ask, then — How has it been ascertained, that Gervase and 
Protase — that Francis and Dominic — that all these monks and 
hermits — are really saints in Heaven ? How has it been as- 
certained that Agatha and Lucy — that Cecilia and Catherine — 
that all these virgins and widows — (the married women are all 
left out) — are really saints in Heaven ? We have strong and 
well-grounded suspicions, that many of these may never have 
entered heaven. We have strong and well-grounded suspic- 
ions that St. Francis, who was one of the most awfully-blas- 
pheming monks that ever trod the chambers of a monastery, 
may never have entered heaven. We have strong and well- 
grounded suspicions that St. Dominic, v\'ho founded that hate- 
ful institution, which has been " drunk with the blood of the 
saint and martyrs of Jesus" — ^the Inquisition — may possibly be 
in a worse region than heaven. We may well be allowed to 
doubt whether Archbishop Lawrence, who shook Ireland with 
rebeUion — or whether Thomas a Becket, who disturbed Eng- 
land by faction — or whether Garnet, who hatched the Gun- 
powder Treason — we may well be allowed to doubt whether 
these men really are saints ! And when we read the roll of 
the canonized saints of Rome — when we read there the names 
of men Hke these — men, whom all history and their own writ- 
ings prove to have been blasphemers, or persecutors, or reb- 
els, or traitors — we think we have some cause to suspect, that 
if we' invoke, and confess, and pray to these men, we may 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 215 

possibly, be invoking and confessing* and praying to damned 
souls in hell^ instead of sainted spirits in heaven. 

This is a difficulty on the very threshold of this practice. 
The Ghurch of Rome herself has recognized the reasonable- 
ness of this difficulty on our parts. It is, therefore, that in or- 
der to remove all doubts and suspicions upon the subject, it 
has been arranged in that Church, that the Pope or Bishop of 
Rome shall select those persons, who in the judgment of his 
court shall be regarded as the saints of God. He then canon- 
izes those persons ; that is, he enrolls their names in the scroll 
of the saints of heaven. And then, being thus canonized by 
him, all the members of the Church of Rome are to invoke 
them, and confess to them, and pray to them. If he refuses 
to canonize the candidate, then no man is to invoke or con- 
fess or pray to him ; but if he determines to canonize the can- 
didate, then every man is to invoke and confess and pray to 
him. This is the arrangement adopted in that Church, in or- 
der to obviate the doubts and suspicions we might be supposed 
to entertain. If we doubt that the blaspheming Francis is a 
saint, we are answered that the Pope has canonized him ; and 
then our doubt is to vanish away, as smoke before the wind ! 
If we suspect that the persecuting Dominic is not a saint, we 
are answered that the Pope has canonized him ; and then our 
suspicion must ^ide away, like darkness before the sun ! Thus 
all depends, according to this, upon the judgment of the 
Bishop of Rome — of a man like ourselves — of a man, who can 
not see into heaven one hair's breadth further than ourselves ; 
and we are called on to peril our soul's salvation in this matter 
on the mere judgment of the Bishop of Rome ! 

His reply to this was given in a sullen and dogged spirit. 
It was simply, that His holiness the Pope, the successor of St. 
Peter, the rock on which the true Church was built, had canon- 
ized them — had declared them to be saints ! He said no more. 

And so, said I, you have nothing for it but the will of the 
Pope ? Their names are not in the Holy Scriptures ; and, 
therefore, you have not the word of God, but only the word 
of the Pope — the word of a mortal man for it ! 



216 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

He seeme(i very impatient and irritated at this ; stating, in 
a warm manner, that the Pope never canonized a saint with- 
out having good reasons for doing so — that every possible 
means were taken to prevent any mistake — that every inquiry 
was made — that every thing was done slowly and surely, and 
year by year — that time and opportunity were fully given for 
every inquiry, every doubt, and every objection — that the act 
of canonization was never completed without long delay, in 
which it was proved that there was no error in the writings of 
the person to be canonized — that, either in his life or after his 
death, miracles were known to be wrought by him — that all 
this was tried and tested in the most searching manner — that 
so severe was the test that an official was appointed, com- 
monly called " the Devil's Attorney," whose special business it 
was to oppose every canonization, and to object to all the 
proofs of orthodoxy, and of sanctity, and of miracles — and 
that, finally, it was not till all was satisfactorily proved, that 
the saint was canonized by the Pope. 

In reply to all this, I said, there was another view to be 
taken of this process of canonization, that very much altered 
its character. The fees — the legalized fees — of the process of 
canonization exceed some thousands of pounds ! These fees 
are to be paid to certain officials in whose hands the afiair 
mainly rests ; and it is not likely — ^it is not in human nature — 
that they would throw any very serious impediments, beyond 
make-belief ones, in the way of their own receipt of these fees, 
which usually run to double the legal amount, an enormous 
sum in so poor a place as Rome ; and, especially, as sometimes 
the expenses of the process itself, which are enormous, all come 
into the possession of the officials and retainers of the Roman 
courts. [The work, " Le Capelle Pontifide^'^ etc., is the ru- 
bric, so to speak, for all the great ceremonies in which the 
Pope takes a part. It was said to have been written by the 
late Pope Gregory XVI. It was published in 1841, under the 
name of his chamberlain and favorite, Moroni. In this work 
it is stated that the canonization of St. Bernard ine of Sienna 
cost 25,000 ducats of gold — that that of St. Bonaventure cost 



I 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 21 7 

27,000 ducats of gold — tliat that of St. Francis de Paola cost 
70,000 scudi — and that of St. Francis of Sales 31,900 scudi, av- 
eraging from £10,000 to £12,000 eacli ! a prodigious sum in 
those days. It also states, that the law has legalized such 
fees ; as, to the prelate of the court, 150 scudi — ^to the writ- 
ers' office, 175 scudi — to the office of the seal, 87 scudi — to 
the register, 176 scudi — to the office of dispatch, 60 scudi — to 
the bank of the Holy Spirit, 849 scudi, etc., etc. The scudo 
is worth about four shillings ; and it may well be believed that 
the officials who receive the fees on completing the canoniz- 
ation, will not throw unnecessary impediments in the way. 
The prospect of a canonization — a new saint — is a perfect 
" God-send" among them ; it is a little fortune to some -of 
them.] It was customary with some kings and princes who 
knew this, as Charles III. of Spain, to propose a saint to be 
canonized almost every year ; not that he cared about the 
saint, but that he might have a handsome excuse for paying a 
large sum of money — a gentlemanly bribe — every year to the 
officials of the papal court, in order to maintain his influence 
in that quarter. He knew they would not quarrel with one 
who brought them so much w^ealth. This was common 
enough in past times. And besides this, a large number of 
saints have been canonized through the rivalry of the monas- 
tic orders, as the Dominicans, and Franciscans, and Jesuits. 
If the member of one order was canonized, then, in a spirit of 
rivalry, the other orders would propose the canonization of 
one of their number. And all this was encouraged by the of- 
ficials of the court, for, whether the saint to be canonized was 
Dominican, or Franciscan, or Jesuit, the officials were always 
ready to receive the fees ; and, as might be expected from 
poor human nature, they would not be likely to oppose the 
completion of a canonization which brought them so much 
wealth. The money was good money from whatever order it 
came. This was a point so well understood, that then, as now, 
all persons felt that the first thing to be done, was to collect 
the adequate funds, as when they are prepared, there is no 
further difficulty of a serious nature to canonization. But the 

10 



218 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

truth is, that of late years very few canonizations take place ; 
not more, I believe, than four or five for the last fifty years ; 
and the reason is, that since the French Revolution and the 
wars of Napoleon, the immense estates of the monastic orders 
were confiscated, and the consequence is, that they have not 
so much to spare in canonizing new saints. At present they 
are obliged to send all over the world to collect subscriptions 
before they can proceed. It is from beginning to end an af- 
fair of money, and not of sanctity.* 

He listened to this with the greatest interest, and seemed 
almost to forget the argument he had in hand. It appeared 
as if he was caught by the idea of the pecuniary corruptions 
insinuated against the court of Rome, for he was a great re- 
former in his way among the politicians of his neighborhood, 
and had constantly denounced in public the oflScials of the 
English Government, for their alleged bribery and corruption ; 
it was with him a favorite subject in his speeches. By an ac- 
cident I had used almost the very words he had himself fre- 
quently employed on such occasions ; and he seemed to be 
quite taken with the subject, and to be thinking in his own 
mind that that was just the case of corruption he should like 
to expose. 

He said nothing when I paused, so after a moment, I con- 
tinued, and said, that the process of canonization was carried 
on through little comfortable commissions of cardinals, and 
other officials — that certain notices were posted on the 
churches, to notify that it was proposed to prove of some can- 
didate for canonization that there was no error in all his writ- 
ings — that he had possessed all the moral \4rtues — that he 
had possessed all the theological virtues — that he had pos- 
sessed them in a heroical degree — that he wrought miracles 
either in his life or in his death — and that these several asser- 
tions would be maintained and proved in the church of some 

* On the suppression of the monastic establishments in Naples, Na- 
poleon Bonaparte took possession of their property, and realized no less 
than twenty-five millions of pounds sterling by the sale 1 so enormous 
had their wealth become. 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 219 

convent at certain intervals of time. It will readily be be- 
lieved that no one takes any trouble about it, except those 
specially interested. Sometimes the church is far away ; some- 
times the proposed saint is a person whose name no one but 
the clergy remember. It is no man's interest and no man's 
business to oppose these assertions. Comfortable little com- 
missions or committees of cardinals and ofEcials meet and settle 
the whole, and receive the fees ; and- all that the public then 
know is, that the Pope is to canonize the saint. A system like 
this can give us no confidence in the canonization of these saints. 
And, therefore, my question still remains — How do you know 
that these persons to whom you pray, and whose names were 
repeated in the litany, are really saints in Heaven. You have 
nothing for it but the word of the Pope who canonized the saint. 
And we have seen that none of us can depend much upon that. 

He answered this rather rudely, saying, that he did not be- 
lieve it — that though he knew very well that everywhere men 
were ready to fleece the poor out of their money, and then to 
job it among themselves — that though it was not improbable 
that there were some such persons at Eome, as every where 
else, yet he did not believe a word I had stated respecting the 
canonization of the saints. He was certain that the Pope, 
who was an holy man, and the cardinals, who w^ere holy men, 
and the bishops, who were holy men, could not have taken 
part in any thing like that w^hich I had described. Jesus 
Christ had promised never to leave his Church, and he would 
never desert the Pope, and the cardinals, and the bishops on 
such an occasion. He would not let them be carried away 
by a love of money, he would not let them be deceived by 
their oflScials. He therefore could not believe my statements, 
and was sure that whenever the Pope canonized the saint, then 
he or she was a saint, and it was lawful to pray to them. 

It was very perceptible that the persons present were not 
satisfied with this sort of answer ; and as my object was prin- 
cipally so to argue as to influence them, without any expecta- 
tion of making an impression on the mind of my opponent, I 
repeated my question, and added, addressing those present, 



220 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that they all had heard my inquiry — how it was ascertained 
that these persons are saints in Heaven ? and that they also 
had heard his answer, namely, that they had the word of the 
Pope for it, and nothing more. 

He here interrupted me, and said that at all events I could 
not deny that some of them were saints. Whatever might be 
said about St. Dominic, or St. Francis, or the others ; yet cer 
tainly, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Mary Magdalen, and St, 
Peter, and all the apostles were saints. It was impossible for 
me to deny that, and why may we not pray to them ? 

I felt at this moment very thankful at the course the con- 
versation was taking, as I thought enough had been said on 
the foregoing point, and that it was time to turn to another, 
and he now gave it precisely the direction in which I had 
wished to turn it. I therefore said that I was glad to be able 
to agree with him so far as the Virgin Mary, and Mary Mag- 
dalen, and St. Peter and all the apostles were concerned — 
they were undoubtedly saints. They are described in Holy 
Scriptures as such, for in the times of the Holy Scriptures, all 
Christians, all believers, were called " Saints." 

And why then, he asked, may we not pray to them ? 

Because, I replied, they can not hear our prayers. How 
can they, who are finite beings in heaven, hear the prayers of 
men on earth ? 

It is a fatal objection to the practice of the Church of 
Rome, that the departed saints are finite beings. It is in the 
nature of things impossible that such finite creatures should 
have cognizance of all the j)rayers and all the hearts of not 
only one or a few individuals, but of the thousands and mil- 
lions of votaries who bow the knee to them. It should be re- 
membered that the confession of sin, and the prayer for their 
intercession, are offered to these saints in every place through- 
out the whole world where the Mass is celebrated ; that they 
are offered by every individual worshiper of that Church in 
the whole world ; that these confessions and invocations and 
prayers, are offered up both in public worship and in private 
devotion ; that whether in the wild forests of America, or in 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 221 

the burning climate of Africa, or in the sunny regions 
of Asia, or in the civilized nations of Europe — whether 
among the negroes, the Indians, the savages, or the civilized 
— wherever there is a member of the Church of Rome, those 
confessions and invocations and prayers are made to these 
saints, and that too by thousands of persons at the very 
same instant of time ; so that it must be absolutely im- 
possible for the saints, unless they are omnipresent and om.- 
niscient, to hear and know these confessions and invocations 
and prayers. We feel that He who is the great, the immor- 
tal, the invisible, the only wise God " Avho is about our bed, 
and about our path, and spieth out all our ways," and who 
" searcheth the heart, and trieth the reins," and who knoweth 
all the " secret thoughts and intents of the heart," inasmuch 
as " all things are naked and open before the eyes of Him with 
whom we have to do," — we feel that He who is infinite, can, 
by his omnipresence and omniscience, hear, and see, and know 
every prayer of every heart. But we also feel that the de- 
parted saints, being but finite creatures, can not possibly hear 
or know the confessions, invocations and prayers that are 
made to them from so many millions of hearts, in so varied 
regions of the world, and at the same moment of time. And, 
therefore we argue that, even if we waived our former consid- 
eration — even supposing we were certified as to the persons 
who are the saints in light — even supposing we had the 
authority of Revelation, instead of the judgment of the Bishop 
of Rome, to assure us — the practice of confessing, and invok- 
ing, and praying to them would still be a vain invention, in 
consequence of their inability to hear us. 

I then addressed myself directly to our friend, and said, I 
would put the question to him, and ask him to answer it be- 
fore all present — How it was possible that the saints in Heaven 
could hear the prayers that are offered to them ? 

All present looked earnestly for his answer. He was fully 
conscious of this. He was confused and silent for some time. 
He said, at last, that he could not tell — that it was not to be 



222 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

expected that he should be able to answer such a question, 
but, perhaps, the great God revealed it to them. 

I reminded him that that overthrew the whole notion on 
which the doctrine of praying to the saints was founded. 
That doctrine was, that we ought not to approach God di- 
rectly or at once — that as men approach an earthly sovereign, 
not directly or at once, but through his courtiers and favorites, 
that they may convey and commend our case to his clemency ; 
so men should approach God through the saints, who are his 
courtiers and favorites, and who can convey our prayers and 
commend our petitions to his favorable consideration. iN'ow, 
this suggestion about God revealing your prayers to the saints 
overthrows all this doctrine ; for it appears that these saints, 
who are the courtiers and favorites of heaven, can not of 
themselves hear your prayers, and therefore, can not of them- 
selves convey or commend your case to the clemency of God, 
unless God shall first reveal your prayers to them. And thus, 
the process is this — your prayers ascend first to God, and then 
God reveals them to the saint, and then the saint prays them 
back again to God ! Or to make this matter more plain, you 
ofier a prayer to the Virgin Mary that she may present it to 
God for you. But she being finite, does not hear your prayer, 
or know you are praying to her. Your suggestion, then sup- 
poses that God who has seen you praying and he^rd your 
prayers, reveals it to the Virgin Mary, and then she reveals it 
back again to God ! And thus we find it is not the saints 
that present your prayers to God, but it is God who presents 
them to the saints, and then they present them back again to 
God ! The system is altogether unscriptural and wrong, for 
it makes God the Mediator between man and the saints, while 
it pretends to make the saints mediators between God and 
man. The truth of Scripture is — " There is one God, and 
one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." 

This had an unmistakable effect on the paiiies present. 
And as our friend was perplexed and silent, a good deal of 
conversation passed among those present, one with another. 
The result seemed to me very satisfactory. 



I^NTVOCATION OF SAINTS. 223 

After a short time, however, in which our friend had a 
private conference with a companion, he said, that although 
he might not be able to explain every difficulty, yet he could 
see no harm in praying to the saints to pray for us — that they 
did no more than ask them as we would ask our fiiends to 
pray for us, and that there could be no harm in this. Do you 
not often ask your friends to pray for you ? 

I reminded him that in the " Confiteor^' they went much 
further than this, for they confess their sins to Mary and the 
saints, and afterward they pray to Mary and the saints to pray 
for them, so that it was clear they did something more than 
ask the saints in the same way as we ask our friends to pray 
for us. Is there, I asked, one person among us makes con- 
fession of all his secret sins to his friends^ and then asks them 
to pray for him ? And if not, why say that you do no more to 
the saints than we do to our friends ? 

This appeal was at once responded to by all present, except 
one who had just entered and had heard neither the argument 
of my opponent nor the answer I had given. He was one 
held in very high estimation for his religiousness, being a 
brother of a confraternity or brotherhood lately settled a few 
miles distant — a sort of monk at a small convent. He was a 
tall, shght man, always dressed very hke a priest, but with a 
coat whose skirts reached his heels, and he seemed a sly and 
smooth and insidious man, with a forced smile ever on his 
lips. Such at least was the impression he had created among 
the Protestants in the neighborhood ; while among the Eoman 
Catholics, though with some exceptions, he was regarded as a 
prodigy of learning as well as a model of piety. His manner 
of entering was marked with a courtesy that was almost serv- 
ile, and yet with a smile that did not leave a pleasant impres- 
sion on my mind. Perhaps, however, I had been prejudiced 
by the reports which I had previously heard. 

Our conference seemed drawing to a close, as my opponent 
was unable or indisposed to say much more. He had begun 
with an overweening confidence, and he felt that he had failed 
in carrying the feelings or opinions of his hearers with him. 



224 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

The converts from Rome whom he hoped to reclaim, seemed 
more confirmed than ever. And he therefore exhibited a more 
moderate and subdued manner. 

I was about to conchide bj recapitulating the arguments 
that had passed. I reminded them that my first question — 
namelj, How he knew that these persons prayed to in the 
Litany of the Saints, were really saints in Heaven ? — was not 
answered. And that my second inquiry — namely, How do 
the saints in Heaven hear the prayers and know the hearts of 
all their worshipers in all parts of the world ? — was also un- 
explained. And I was going on with some general objections 
to the practice of praying to Mary and to the saints, as dis- 
honorino' to the mediation and intercession of Jesus Christ, 
when I was interrupted by the stranger. He made many 
apologies and asked a thousand pardons, and smiled most 
pleasantly upon all, before he spoke on the subject. 

He said with extreme suavity, and with an expression that 
conveyed a sort of smile at my simplicity and ignorance in 
making such an objection — that the Church of Rome never 
enjoined or required her members to pray to Mary or the 
saints, but left it as freely as most Protestants themselves, 
to the feeling of her members to do in that respect as they 
thought fit. 

I was somewhat amused at the self-satisfaction and self- 
complacency with which this was said, as if he was sure it 
would either silence me, or lead me to withdraw the objec- 
tion. I said in reply, that I had frequently heard that state- 
ment before, but that it was from persons who did not know 
me, and I was sure he could hardly expect me to believe it. 
The facts of the case were known to every one, the practice 
was universal in the Church of Rome, and a man must shut 
his eyes if he would avoid seeing it. 

He again replied in the same tone, in almost a patronizing 
and compassionating way, saying that he must be forgiven 
if he thought he might understand his own religion better 
than others — that Protestants very often make mistakes about 
the Catholic religion — that indeed many uttered calumnies 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 225 

about her — that in fact the Council of Trent had only said 
that it was " good and profitable" to invoke the saints, and 
had never enforced it on any one, and that he could assure 
me, that if I or any Protestant present, were induced to enter 
the Church of Rome, we should not be required to pray to 
the saints. It was always left to the feeling and wishes of 
every individual for himself. There was no force or con- 
straint put on any one, for, he added with a smile, you are 
left, as to this practice, altogether to the private judgment you 
admire so much. 

I asked him to be so kind, if he had no particular objec- 
tion, to repeat the Confiteor, or form of confession. 

He immediately complied, " I confess to Almighty God, to 
the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Arch- 
angel, to Blessed John the Baptist," etc. 

I said that before any priest gave absolution to the peni- 
tent, he obliged him to make this confession, in which he 
must confess to Mary and all the saints^ and then pray to 
Mary and all the saints^ and until the penitent did this, you 
would not give him the absolution ! "^ow as this absolution 
is held by you to be necessary to the communion of the 
Church here, and to salvation hereafter, your making it de- 
pendent on this confession, is certainly making praying to the 
saints a necessary thing. 

He hesitated here, and evidently did not know how to an- 
swer me. It certainly was a difficulty, and he as certainly was 
unprepared for it. The company present showed that their 
feeling was not in his favor. 

I continued, and reminded him that this same " Confiteor" 
is part and parcel of the mass or communion-service of his 
Church, and that there is no communion without it ; and that 
no man can be admitted to receive the communion in the 
Church of Rome, unless this confiteor be first completed ; that 
is, no man is received to the communion until he has first 
cmfessed to Mary and all the saints^ and then prayed to 
Mary and all the saints ; and this, you will admit, is very like 
making the practice necessary. Is it not a fact, I asked him, 

10* 



226 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that this confiteor is part and parcel of your communion serv- 
ice ? Is it not in the service of the mass ? 

He acknowledged that it was so, but in a tone very differ- 
ent from the self-complacent and pleasing manner that had 
previously characterized him. I saw that the feeling of all 
present was entirely with me on the point, and I felt that my 
turn was now come ; so I remarked that I hoped he would 
now admit that I knew something of his religion, or at least 
of the rehgion of the Church of Rome, and that he would 
allow that the Church of Eome did something more than say 
that prayer to the saints was " good and profitable," inasmuch 
as she made it essential before giving absolution^ and before 
admission to her communion. 

He said no more, but quietly rose and left the house. He 
beckoned to my opponent, who immediately followed him. I 
therefore said a few words to make the conclusion of our sub- 
ject profitable ; to the efiect that we should find the Lord 
Jesus Christ far more loving and compassionate and sympa- 
thizing than any saint — ^far more ready and willing to hear 
oiir prayers and receive our petitions than any saint ; and that 
our best course was to make our way to Him, and instead of 
stopping to ask Mary, or entreat Peter, or pray Paul, to go at 
once to Jesus himself — to cast ourselves at his feet — to tell 
Him all our sins, our sorrows, our shame, our need, and ask of 
Him the love and forgiveness we require. He has Himself 
graciously promised that He will cast out none that come to 
Him. His words are, " Him that cometh unto me I will in 
no wise cast out." 

We soon separated. 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 

The Origin of this Practice in the Classic Mythology of Eome— The Contrast be- 
tween False and True Religion in the matter of Mediation— The Opinions of 
learned Heathens— The Worship of Dulia— Various groups of Texts of Scripture 
on this Practice — The Argument in its Favor from its supposed Humility— The 
Argument distinguishing between Eedemption and Intercession — ^This Practice 
withdraws the Devotion from Christ. 

There are several circumstances, as to time and place and 
persons, that must greatly effect tlie method of conducting 
controversy. The halls of a university — the drawing-room of 
the refined — the library of the learned — the workshop of the 
artisan — the cottage of the peasant, all require a different pro- 
cess of reasoning and illustration, and there is nothing more 
certain than that the mode of speaking to a sincere and re- 
ligious mind, must be very different from that of dealing with 
one, that is careless upon the subject, or enters on it either as 
an intellectual conflict, or in the spirit of a partisan. In ref- 
erence to the practice of praying to the saints, I have 
already described a conversation with one who was unfeign- 
edly religious, however mistaken ; and another with one who 
acted throughout in a spirit of factious partisanship. There 
are many other ways of dealing with the subject, which it 
would be unpardonable to omit here, as I have often used them, 
varying them according to the character of the parties with 
whom I may have conversed. 

I have frequently found among Roman Catholics of intel- 
ligence and general reading, especially those who have had 
a classical educaftion, that the origin and growth and history 
of any practice had considerable interest — a peculiar interest 
when the practice was traceable to the opinions and practices 



228 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

of classic times. Siicli persons in tlie Churcli of Rome, are 
often becter able to appreciate an argument derivable from 
such sources, than one founded on the clearest statements of 
Holy Scripture. They are perhaps acquainted ^vith the former, 
they are very probably unacquainted with the latter. 

In nothing have I found this more successful than in the 
matter of praying to the saints. 

I have often argued, that the object of revealed religion, was 
to overthrow every false rehgion — eveiy mythology however 
ancient. The pagan or heathen world had a mythology with 
numerous gods and demi-gods, varying in every country and 
every cHme ; Asia, Africa and Europe had all their different 
systems, and though perhaps having a common origin, accord- 
ing as conquests and migrations intermingled diverse people of 
diverse rehgions, they became more or less modified, till they 
were innumerable in their phases. I have also urged, that 
the great distinctive peculiarity of Christianity, as contrasted 
with heathenism, is this : — Christianity teaches " there is one 
God and one Mediator between God and man ;" while 
heathenism taught, there were many gods and many mediators 
between gods and men. The classic mythology of Greece and 
of Rome held the existence of Dii Majores^ superior divinities, 
and JDH Minores, inferior divinities. It was imagined that 
the former class possessed all power and authority, and that 
the latter acted as mediators between them and mortals ; so 
that it was a part of the mythology of the age, that there were 
many yods, and many mediators. N'ow the revelation of 
heaven, contained in the Holy Scriptures, sets forth, in op- 
position to this, that " there is one God, and one Mediator be- 
tween God and man." The apostle Paul draws the contrast 
in the followino^ strikino^ words — " There is none other God 
but one ; for though there be that are called gods [that is 
nominal gods], whether in heaven or in earth (as there be 
gods many, and lords many), but to us there is but one God, 
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him ; and one 
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him." 
— 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. Here is the point of contrast between 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 229 

heatlien mythology and Cliristian revelation. Heathen- 
ism admitted many gods, and many lords, or mediators, 
while Christianity admits only one God, and one Lord, or 
mediator. 

We charge the Church of Rome with having abandoned this 
distinctive peculiarity of Christianity, and with having thus far 
apostatized into the idolatry of heathenism. We do not charge 
her with having many gods^ but we charge her with having 
many mediators. Instead of holding the single mediation of 
Jesus Christ, she has a lengthy roll or calendar of saints — 
whom she herself has canonized, and sets forth as mediators 
and advocates "between God and man," for the purpose of 
bearing our wants and prayers before God, and pleading with 
Him in our behalf. 

The answer made to this, is generally a very indignant de- 
nial ; it is strongly and emphatically denied ; it is asserted 
that no saint is regarded as a god or a goddess : It was the 
system among the heathen nations — ^that which was the clas- 
sic mythology of the Roman Empire — the empire which has 
since become the field or platform of the Roman Church — ^had 
recognized an innumerable band of gods and demi-gods ; yet 
they regarded them as in reality deities, more or less potent, 
to be appeased or pacified ; while in the Church of Rome, the 
notion of any divinity resident in any saint was altogether and 
expressly discarded ; she holds the unity of the godhead as 
strongly as ourselves, and there was no charge she would reject 
more determinedly than that of "having deified the saints, and 
thus, like the heathen, multiplied their gods. 

In reply to this, I have stated, that I was quite aware that 
the saints were not gods or goddesses, and were not regarded 
as such, or believed to be such in the Church of Rome — that 
if they were beheved to be such, there would be in that belief 
an ample justification of the religious worship which is ren- 
dered to them — that in that case it would only be a matter of 
course, that they should be worshiped ; but that my objection 
was that when they were regarded as only dead men and dead 
women, whose bodies were moldering in the grave, waiting 



230 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

for the day of resurrection, and wliose souls were supposed to 
be in heaven ; that as such, a religious worship so great and 
reverential as praying and confessiDg and making vows to 
them, should be offered to them. This I have said, was iden- 
tical, not in name, but in reality with the practice of the clas- 
sic mythology of the Roman Empire, and was so far an apos- 
tasy from the faith of revealed religion. 

iThis apostasy of the Church of Eome will be more appa- 
rent, when we reflect that the character of the mediation 
which Romanism ascribes to its saints is precisely the same 
as that which heathenism ascribed to its demi-gods. It was 
believed among the heathen, that when a man became illus- 
trious for his deeds, his conquests, his inventions, or aught else 
that distinguished him as a benefactor of mankind, he could 
be canonized and enrolled among the inferior divinities. He 
thus became a mediator, whose sympathies with his fellow- 
men, on one hand, and whose merits with the gods, on the 
other, fitted him for the mediatorial office of bearing the prayers 
and the wants of mortals to the presence of the gods. The 
heathen philosophers, Hesiod, Plato, and Apuleius, all thus 
speak of those persons. The last named philosopher says, 
" They are intermediate intelligencers, by whom our prayers 
and wants pass unto the gods. They are the mediators be- 
tween the inhabitants of earth, and the inhabitants of heaven, 
carrying thither our prayers, and drawing down their blessings. 
They bear back and forward prayers from us, and supplies 
from them ; or they are those that explain between both parties, 
and who carry our adorations, etc." This was the creed of 
heathenism, and in nothing but the name does it differ from 
the corresponding creed of Romanism. When the Church of 
Rome finds members of her communion, whom she regards as 
signally pious, or illustrious for supposed miraculous powers, 
she holds that they may be canonized and enrolled among her 
saints — that then they can mediate between God and man — • 
that they have sufficient favor or influence with God to obtain 
compliance with our prayers, and therefore they are fitting 
objects to whom our confessions, invocations and prayers may 



[ 



THE V/ORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 231 

be offered ; or as slie expresses it in her creed, " that the saints 
reigning with Christ are to be honored and invoked, and that 
they offer prayers to God for us." The principle of heathen 
Romanism, and the principle of Christian Romanism are one 
and the same, the only difference is in the detail of the names. 
And the origin of this practice is demonstrative of this ; for 
when it was found, after the establishment of Christianity, in 
the times of Constantine, when the great object of the court 
was to promote uniformity of religion, that many of the hea- 
then would outwardly conform to Christianity, if allowed to 
retain in private their worship of their guardian or tutelary 
divinities, they were so allowed, merely on changing the names 
of Jupiter to Peter, or Juno to Mary, still worshiping their old 
divinities under new names, and even retaining old images that 
-were baptized with Christian names. This is apparent in the 
writings of those times, and was thought a measure of wis- 
dom — a stroke of profound policy, as tending to produce a 
uniformity of rehgion among the unthinking masses. The in- 
vocations of Juno have been transferred to Mary ; the prayers 
to Mercury have been transferred to Paul. "We see not how 
the substitution of the names of Damian or Cosmo for those 
of Mercury or Apollo, or how the substitution of the names 
of Lucy or Cecilia for those of Minerva or Diana, can alter 
the idolatrous character of the practice. In some instances 
they have not even changed the names, and Romulus and 
Remus are still worshiped in Italy, under the more modem 
names of St. Romulq and St. Remigio. The simple people 
believe them to have been two holy bishops. I have myself 
witnessed this near Florence, and even Bacchus is not without 
his votaries, under the ecclesiastical name of St. Bacco ! The 
principle and the practice of papal Rome are identical with 
the principle and practice of pagan Rome. Every argument 
to justify one may be equally urged to justify or extenuate 
the other. And if the principle and practice of pagan Rome 
are to be denounced as idolatrous, I see not why the very same 
principle and practice in papal Rome should not be denounced 
as idolatrous likewise. 



232 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

To this point, they replied that the systems were not the 
same, that in pagan Rome they regarded these persons as gods 
or as demi-gods, as possessing at least some portion of the 
divinity, and they worshiped them and sacrificed to them as 
such ; whereas in Papal or Christian Rome, they regarded the 
saints as men and women, who were the friends and favorites 
of God, as unable to assist us, or do any thing for us, except to 
exert their influence with God by praying on our behalf — that 
as such the Church of Rome never paid divine worship to the 
saints, but only an inferior or lesser worship, called dslsKx — 
the worship of laTgiia being rendered to God alone, that of 
dulsm being rendered to the saints, while an intermediate wor- 
ship called -tnsQdsleia was rendered to the Virgin Mary. 

My reply to this has always been that my argument has not 
been an argument about names but about things. If the 
homage or worship paid to the Christian saints be identical in 
its nature and character to that paid to the heathen demi god, 
it is about the thing and not the name we should argue. But 
since the question has been raised as to the name or kind of 
worship — as to rendering to the saints that kind and degree 
of religious worship called dslsia^ it was the very same in kind 
and degree, with that which the heathen rendered to their 
demi-gods. The Apostle Paul explicitly states this ; for de- 
scribing the worship of the classic heathen, before their con- 
version to Christianity, he says " when ye knew not God, ye 
paid the service of Ssleta to them that by nature are no gods." 
Gal. iv. 8. This is a clear and decisive statement, showing 
that while the Galatians knew not the true God, they rendered 
to their false gods, to those who were not gods by nature, the 
service of daleia^ the very service which the Church of Rome 
avows that she pays to the saints who are not gods. The very 
words of the Apostle's description of the heathcD state of the 
Galatians, describe with precision the actual state of the 
Church of Rome, " ye pay d^Uia to them who by nature are 
no gods." * 

* The following well-known prayer embodies the three species or 
degrees of worship together : — 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 233 

To this I am not acquainted with any reply. It effectually 
silences all those who attempt to justify the system on the plea 
of giving only the service of Dulia to the saints. It only iden- 
tifies the practice of Papal Rome with the practice of Pagan 
Rome, as being paid to those who are not gods by nature. 

But while the Church of Rome has thus departed from that 
which is the great distinctive mark of Christianity, as distin- 
guishing it from the classic mythology, it has also adopted 
herein a practice in direct repugnance to the whole language 
of Holy Scripture. It is impossible, owing to the multitude 
of Scriptures bearing on this point, to enter on any detail, and 
I shall, therefore, endeavor to group them — to classify them 
into certain groups of texts, which will sufficiently intimate the 
general character of all. Each group becomes a distinct ar- 
gument in itself. 

1. The first class comprehends those passages which ex- 
pressly deny the mediation of any other than One — even 
Jesus Christ. I have already referred to that place, where we 
read — " There is none other God but one ; for though there 
be, that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as 
there be gods many and lords many), but to us there is but 
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him ; 
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we 
by Him." — 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. This asserts, that as there is 
only one God^ so there is only one Lord or Mediator ; as it is 
expressed in the place — " There is one God and one Mediator 
between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
It is argued that although this place asserts, there is " one 
Mediator," yet that this does not imply that there may not be 
many more mediators besides — that the assertion of " one 

" Jesus, Mary, Joseph, I give you my heart and my soul. 
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, assist me in my last agony. 
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, I breathe out my soul to you in peace." 
To this prayer is affixed an Indulgence of one hundred days, by a 
Bull issued in 180Y, and in it are the three degrees of worship — Latvia 
to Jesus ; Dulia to Joseph ; HyperduUa to Mary I It is rather hard 
for a simple man to disting\iish such niceties. 



234 EVENINGS -WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Mediator" is not necessarily an exclusion of many others. But 
any man, who reads the words, — " There is one God, and one 
Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus," will 
perceive, that if the phrase " one Mediator" is to be explained 
as allowing the existence of many other mediators, then the 
phrase, " one God," must be also explained as allowing the 
existence of many other gods. He will at once perceive that 
the true purport of the passage is, that as there is but " one 
God," so there is but " one Mediator," and that Mediator is 
Jesus Christ. The same remark is applicable to the words — 
" If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins." — 
1 John ii. 1. It is the intention of such language to convey, 
that Jesus Christ is the only Advocate. There is no allusion 
to Mary or Lucy or Cecilia. There is no mention of Damian, 
or Protase or Thaddeus. There is one Advocate — one Lord 
—one Mediator — even as there is one God. 

2. The second class of Scripture texts consists of those which 
ascribe the blessings and privileges of the Gospel, as flowing 
to the Church, through the mediation of Jesus Christ. We 
read, that " through Him we have access by one Spirit unto 
the Father." And again, " .ISTow in Christ Jesus, ye who were 
afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ — Eph. ii. 13, 18. 
And again, " according to the eternal purpose, which He pur- 
posed in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have bolduess 
and access with confidence, by the faith of Him." — Eph. iii. 11. 
And again, " We have peace wath God, through Jesus Christ 
our Lord, by whom we have access by faith." — Rom. v. 3« 
And again — " Ye are to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to 
God by Jesus Christ." — 1 Peter, i. 5. This class of texts 
might be extended to any length, for they are innumerable. 
And their value in our present argument is, that they set forth 
Jesus Christ as the mean — the person mediating between us 
and our God — the Mediator between God and man, through 
whom we have access, in whom Ave are accepted, by whom, 
our prayers are presented ; while at the same time, there is 
not the remotest allusion to any others — not the faintest im- 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 235 

plication that there are any others, through whom we can 
have access, or by whom our prayers can be made acceptable. 
The truth involved in them all is, that which Jesus Christ has 
Himself proclaimed — " I am the way, and the truth, and the 
life ; no man can come unto the Father but by Me." — John 
xiv. 16. 

3. There is a third class of Scriptures, that bears strongly 
on this point. It embraces those which expressly mention 
that it is through Jesus Christ our prayers are to be offered 
to the throne of grace. His own words are — " I go to My 
Father ; and whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name ; 
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 
If ye shall ask any thing in My name^ I will do it." — John, 
xiv. 13, 14. Again — " In that day ye shall ask me nothing. 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the 
Father in My name ; He will give it you. Hitherto have ye 
asked nothing in My name ; ask, and ye shall receive, that 
your joy may be full." — John, xvi. 23, 24. And again — " In 
that day ye shall ask in My name ; and I say not unto you, 
that I will pray the Father for you." — ^John, xvi. 26. This 
class of Scriptures is of great importance in this question ; for 
they prove that it is not only in the matter of redemption, 
but in the matter of intercession, that the Lord Jesus Christ 
is the Mediator. And coming from the gracious lips of Jesus 
Himself, they affix the promise of hearing and answering 
prayer only to such prayers as are offered in the name of 
Jesus Christ. There is no promise of hearing or answering 
any prayer, that may be offered through any other mediator, 
save Him, who is the " one Mediator between God and man." 
K offered in his name, we have the promise that our prayers 
shall be heard and answered. If offered in the name of any 
angel or saint, we have no promise whatever, that the prayer 
shall be heard or answered. 

4. But this suggests a fourth class of Scriptures, involving 
another argument. I allude to those in which religious wor- 
ship is stated to have been offered to angels, and to have been 
refused by them. I allude to the words — " And I fell at his 



236 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it 
not ; I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have 
the testimony of Jesus ; worship God ; for the testimony of 
Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." — Rev. xix. 10. And again — 
" I John saw these things and heard them. And when I had 
heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the 
angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto 
m-e. See thou do it not ; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of 
thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the say- 
ing of this book : worship God." Here was John so over- 
powered with the glory of the angel, that he prostrated him- 
self to worship before his feet ; and the angel, at once and 
with all earnestness, forbids and rebukes it. And not only so, 
but assigns as a reason, that he was himself but the servant of 
God, who alone was to be worshiped ; and therefore to each 
rebuke he adds the solemn warning — " Worship God." So 
keenly is this rebuke of the angel felt by some of the advo- 
cates of the Church of Rome, that they have cut it out of 
their catechism — urging the action of John in worshiping the 
angel as a proof that we may, after his example, likewise wor- 
ship the angels ; and then carefully suppressing the answer of 
the angel, which censured and rebuked him !* In the whole 
history of the Church there has never been so wilfully per- 
verted and falsely handled a Scripture as this ; and in such a 
daring abuse of the Word of God the Church of Rome has 
had no rival, but on that occasion when the devil quoted 
Scripture on the mount. 

5. But while these Scriptures illustrate our position in 
reference to the angels, there is another class that illustrates it 
in reference to the saints. I allude to the place, " As Peter 
was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, 
and worshiped him : but Peter took him up, saying, Stand 
up ; I myself also am a man." — Acts, x. 25, 26. And again : 
" The priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought 

* This occurs in the Catechism published by the celebrated Dr. 
Doyle, for Ireland. 



I 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 237 

oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacri- 
fice with the people. Which, when the apostles, Barnabas 
and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among 
the people, crying out, and saying. Sirs, why do you these 
things ? we also are men of hke passions with you, and preach 
unto you that you should turn from these vanities unto the 
living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and 
all things that are therein." — Acts, xiv. 13-15. Here we find 
that both Peter and Paul — whose names are in the Eoman 
Litany as persons to whom prayers are to be made, and in 
honor of whom the sacrifice of the Mass is to be offered, did 
refuse both the prayer and the sacrifice. And they both 
assign the same argument for their refusal — Peter saying, *' I 
myself also am a man," and Paul saying, " We are men of 
like passions with you ;" showing that the fact of their being 
men and not God, disentitled them to all religious worship. 
And feeling as we do, that it was more rational to pray to 
them when on earth, and when therefore they were able to 
hear, than to pray to them when in heaven, and where they 
are not able to hear us — feeling this, and remembering that 
the saints themselves, while they lived, refused the religious 
honors that were tendered them, we conclude that they would 
still refuse, if they could know it, the confessions, and invo- 
cations and prayers that are made, and the sacrifices of Masses 
that are offered to their honor in the Church of Rome. 

6. There is a sixth class of Scriptures — the last to which I 
shall refer, as illustrating the doctrine of our Church. We 
invariably, in the Church of England, offer our prayers to God : 
and we justify this, by that large class of Scriptures, which 
contains the prayers and invocations of holy men, in all ages 
of the Church of God. All the prayers offered by Moses, by 
Abraham, by Hannah, by David, by Solomon, by Daniel, by 
Jonah, by the apostles, we find, without one solitary exception, 
offered neither to angels or saints, but only to God. And in 
the Psalms of David, he repeats his determination to invoke 
God, and God alone. " As for me," he says, " I will call on 
the Lord," and " we will call on Thy name," and " I will call 



238 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

on Him as long as I live." In innumerable places in the book 
of Psalms the very word " invoco " — " to invocate," is used in 
the Vulgate or Romish Scriptures, and in every case it is an 
invocation of God, and there is not a single or solitary instance 
of its being made to angels or saints. The only case that looks 
like it, is in the parable of Dives and Lazanis ; there the rich 
man in the torments of hell offers a prayer to Abraham. This 
is the only example. The only example of a man praying to 
a saint, is the example of a damned spirit in hell ! the only 
example of a man praying to a saint, is the example of a prayer 
that was refused ! and yet the Church of Rome, rejecting the 
examples of such holy ones, as Abraham, and David, and 
Daniel, and Paul, and Peter, selects as the model to imitate, 
this solitary example of a man praying to a saint from the tor- 
ments of hell ! 

I have thus grouped these six classes of texts — each group 
in itself supplying a distinct argument against the practice of 
the Church of Rome. The whole collectively form an insur- 
mountable barrier against our comphance with her practice. 
We dare not abandon the mediation of Christ to have recourse 
to the mediation of saints. We can not — we dare not pluck 
the mediatorial crown from the brow of Jesus, to place it on 
the brow of His saints. And as for making the saints media- 
tors along with Him and beside Him — as for making them 
sharers or partners or rivals with Him in that glorious office — 
I feel that we should do Him a less dishonor in dethroning 
Him altogether, than in raising so many partners to the throne ; 
I feel that we should do Him a less dishonor in renouncing 
Christianity altogether, than in exalting this heathenish idolatry 
beside Christianity. The idol of Dagon could staiid in peace 
in his temple while it was alone : the Ark of Jehovah could 
rest in peace in its Tabernacle while it was alone ; but when 
on'ce they were brought together, the anger of Jehovah was 
kindled — ^the silence of the temple of Dagon was broken, and 
the idol was shattered in pieces. The idolatry of heathenism 
shall stand till the Lord's time; the worship of Christianity 
shall stand forever ; but if heathenism and Christianity are to 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 239 

be dove-tailed into, each other — if they are to be so amalga- 
mated as to make but one rehgion in one temple (as is done 
in the Chm^ch of Eome) — then it is practically to place Satan 
side by side with Christ upon the throne : the deepest and the 
blackest dishonor that man could perpetrate against his God. 

I have, as occasioned offered, pressed an argument against 
praying to the saints, based on each separate class, or group 
of these Scriptures, and my opponents have more or less en- 
deavored to weaken their force, though not unfrequently the 
natural conclusion deducible from them has been fairly and 
candidly admitted. I have, then, usually called attention to 
the whole of these grouped together, as forming, like the com- 
pleteness of an architectural pile, a powerful argument affecting 
the mind by its general bearing, as illustrative of the general 
tone of Christianity. 

To all this, they have often presented two replies. 

They first argue, that so far from being a dishonor done to 
Christ and his mediation and intercession, it has the opposite 
tendency. It exhibits humility, as showing them to be so lowly 
and humble as that they are unwilling to come directly into 
his high and holy presence, and presuming only to approach 
him through his saints. They argue that it is like approach- 
ing an earthly sovereign, not directly to his person and pres- 
ence, but through his favorites and courtiers — that thus in- 
stead of being a dishonor done to Christ, it is rather an evi- 
dence of humilty in themselves. 

To this we reply in the words of Holy Scriptures : " Let no 
man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and 
worshiping of angels^ intruding into those things which he 
hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." — Col. ii. 
18. From these words, it would appear that this practice was 
attempted to be justified in the very beginnings of Christian- 
ity, under this very same plea of humility ; that men arguing 
from the practice of the courts of earth, assumed an analo- 
gous practice to the courts in heaven, and that the Holy Scrip- 
ture in this place warns us against this as " a voluntary humil- 
ity," and then adds : " Which things indeed have a show of 



240 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

wisdom in will- worship and humility ^^'^ verse 23 ; not the 
reality of a Christian humility, but the mere appearance — the 
show of it ! And this was precisely the view taken of this 
text in the primitive Church. Theodoret, who lived in the 
fourth century, comments on these words thus : " Because 
some persons commanded men to worship angels, the apostle 
commands the contrary, namely, that they should adorn their 
words with the remembrance of the Lord Christ, and present 
their thanksgivings to God even the Father, through him, and 
not through angels. The Council of Laodicea following this 
rule, and desiring to extirpate this inveterate disease, made a 
law that men should not pray to angels, and leave the Lord 
Jesus Christ." He says again : " This vice continued in Phry- 
gia and Pisidia for a long time ; and for this reason the council 
assembled at Laodicea, the chief city of Phrygia, forbad 
them by a law to pray to angels ;" and Theodoret states that 
they " practiced this under 'pretense of its humility^ saying, 
that God was invisible, inaccessible, and incomprehensible, 
and that it was iStting that we should approach him through 
the means of the angels." It is a humility that injures and 
dishonors Christ. If there be one trait in His character, if 
there be one jewel in His diadem, more conspicuous than 
another, it is His lo^dng-kindness and compassion, evidencing 
his willingness to hear and receive us. Every act he per- 
formed — every suffering he endured — every word he uttered, 
is an evidence of his willingness to hear and receive us. There 
are his many promises ; there are his many invitations ; there 
are his many entreaties, to induce us to come to Him ; and 
they all are so many evidences of his willingness to hear and 
receive us. He has exhibited Himself in every conceivable 
way, that could evidence his accessibleness — his willingness 
to be approached by the poorest and humblest sinner. He 
has shown this to such a deo^ree, that we can not hesitate for 
a moment in stating, that no man can rightly peruse the Holy 
Scriptures without the fullest conviction that Jesus Christ is 
at all times, and under all circumstances, infinitely more will- 
ing to hear our petitions than any of the angels or saints can 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 241 

be, to be the bearers of them. And, therefore, we conclude 
that this plea of humility, Vv'hile it is only " a show of humili- 
ty," is really throwing a doubt on the invitations — putting an 
affront upon the compassions, and an insult upon the tender- 
ness of Jesus Christ. 

The second answer which they urge, and indeed very fre- 
quently urge, against the inference from all the language of 
Scripture is, that though applicable as proving Jesus Christ 
to be the only mediator of redemption, they do not prove him 
to be the only mediator of intercession. And, therefore, when 
it is proved that "there is one God, and one mediator be- 
tween God and man," the words having reference to Christ, 
as the mediator of redemption^ do not exclude the saints as 
mediator's of intercession. 

The rejoinder to this case is clear. It is evident that this 
objection assumes that when the Holy Scriptures state, " There 
is one God, and one Mediator between God and man," they 
do not refer to a mediator of intercession ; whereas the con- 
text proves beyond all question, that in that very place the 
reference is to Jesus Christ as a mediator of intercession, as 
well as a mediator of redemption. The whole passage is as 
follows : " I exhort, therefore, that first of all supplications^ 
prayers^ intercessions^ and giving of thanks be made for all 
men : for kings, and for all that are in authority ; that we 
may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and hon- 
esty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
Saviour ; who ^vill have all men to be saved, and to come 
unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and 
one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus : 
who gave Himself, a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
— 1 Tim. ii. 1-6. The subject-matter of this exhortation is 
" supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks." 
And it encourages us to these exercises and privileges, in the 
assurance that we have a mediator in Jesus Christ, through 
whom they shall be presented unto God, and by whom they 
shall be acceptable, as He has laid down His life as a ransom 
for us. And yet, though " supplications, prayers, intercessions 

11 



242 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and giving of thanks," are expressly the subject of this Scrip. 
ture, the advocates of Rome would endeavor to persuade us 
that the Lord Jesus Christ is not here described as the Media- 
tor of intercession ! 

And this brings this subject to its true conclusion. In the 
religion of revelation, there is no one truth more certain, as 
there is none more comforting, than the mediation and inter- 
cession of Jesus Christ. It is stated that he is " the High 
Priest of our profession," and in that capacity he is ever in the 
presence of the Almighty, making intercession in behalf of his 
people ; there He ever presents them before the throne of 
grace. He pleads in their behalf, He has suffered for them, Ho 
has poured forth his blood for them, He has died on the cross 
for them, and now in the heaven of heavens, He presents His 
bleeding sacrifice. His spotless work. His eveiiastiDg right- 
eousness. His infinite merits, His effectual intercession for them. 
It is written, "He is able to save to the uttermost, ail that 
come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make inter- 
cession for them." And then, there is love — such love in the 
depth of His heart, for those whom He came to seek and to 
save — a love, the length, and breath, and depth, and height, 
of which no man can comprehend — a love that like His own 
nature is infinite ; and with such a High Priest pleading for 
us, and such love yearning toward us, it seems a cold and sad 
return on our parts, to look on all that prevailing intercession 
and all that wondrous love, as ineflScient, so that we must go 
seek the intercession and depend on the love of supposed 
saints, who know nothing of us, have never died for us, and 
have never shown any love toward us. St. Chrysostom has a 
beautiful passage on this subject. In allusion to the woman 
of Canaan he says, " God is always near us : if we entreat a 
man, we must inquire what he is doing, and whether he is 
asleep or at leisure, and perhaps the servant gives no answer. 
But with God there is nothing of all this, wherever you go 
and call on Him, He hears. With Him there is no want of 
leisure, no mediator, no servant to keep you off. Mark the 
wisdom of the woman of Canaan, she does not pray to James 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 243 

she does not beseech John, she does not fly to Peter, but she 
breaks through them all saying, I want no mediator, but tak- 
ing repentance as my spokesman, I come to the fountain itself; 
it was for this He left the heavens, it was for this He became 
flesh, it was that such as I might have boldness to speak to 
Himself; I want no mediator with Him. Have mercy upon 
me." This is the true spirit of the Gospel. The system of 
the Church of Rome teaching her members to trust to the in- 
tercession of the saint, is an injury to the intercession of Jesus 
Christ as if she thought this required their assistance ; and 
her teaching her members to rest on the love of the saints, 
implies a want of faith in the infinite love of him " who hath 
loved us and given himself for us." And it has the unhappy 
effects of drawing away the mind and heart from Christ, and 
directing prayer and praise, and thanksgiving, and love, and 
worship, to the saints instead of to the Saviour — to the creature 
instead of the Creator. St. Paul tells us this was the charac- 
teristic of the heathen Romans, that " they served the creature 
more than the Creator." 

And it is well worthy of remark, that it was this character- 
istic of the ancient heathenism of Rome that it is said by 
modern Roman Catholic divines to have been the cause of 
saint-worship not being permitted among primitive Christians. 
Delahogue allows this in his work, forming as it does the 
class book of Maynooth. It is a fact on which there is no 
question among the learned of all Churches — it is admitted by 
the ablest divines of the Church of Rome, that prayer to the 
saints was altogether unpracticed and unknown among the 
Christians of the early ages ; and as the evidence of this fact is 
so clear and strong as an argument against this novel practice 
of the Church of Rome, the divines of that Church are obliged 
to explain the absence or omission of this practice in the best 
and purest time, by telling us that praying to the saints was 
not countenanced lest it should seem to be identified with the 
praying to the demi-gods — lest the heathen and Christian prac- 
tice should seem alike. They tell us that on this account 
prayers to saints were not permitted till heathenism was abol- 



244 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ished ; namely, for the first three centuries after Christ, and 
that it was not introduced till Christianity was established under 
Constantino. Whatever may be thought of the ingenuity of 
this excuse, it is a full admission that it was no part or prac- 
tice of the Church of Christ in its earliest and purest ages, 

Note. — Tliey sometimes argue from Rev. v. 8. They argue here 
that this vision represents the saints in heaven, offering up the prayers 
of the saints on earth. The answer to this is, that it is by no means 
clear that this is the meaning of the passage at alL The parties are 
the four beasts and the four-and-tiventy elders, which, when more care- 
fully rendered, will be the four living ones and the four-and-twenty 
presbyters ; — ^the four living ones being the emblems or symbols of 
the four great empires of the earth ; and the presbyters being the 
officials or ministers of the Church on earth : so that the vision rather 
represents the triumph of Christianity, when the four empires of earth, 
once pagan persecutors, shall be converted ; and with the ministry of 
Christ's Church shall present their prayers, which will then be the 
prayers, not of pagans, but of Christians — not of unbelievers, but of 
saints before the throne of God. The similar passage on earth in Rev. 
viii. 3, has a similar solution. The prayers of " saints" are the prayers 
of Christians on earth, who are always called " saints" in the New Tes- 
tament ; and these prayers are here described as presented to God by 
the great angel — by Him who is the Great High Priest of the Church. 



THE VIRGIN MAEY. 

The Original of the "Worship of Mary — The Symbols of Creation among the Hea- 
then — Whether worshiped as a Goddess or a Yt^oman — Inferior Kinds of Wor- 
ship — Whether her Merits are pleaded*Avith God — Whether She is prayed to for 
her own Power — The Sahbatine Privilege — Her Omnipotence according to St. 
Alphonso and St. Bcrnardine — She is placed in some Devotional Books on an 
equality with Christ — In others above Ilim, as being more Mercifnl, and Prayers 
more acceptable through her than through Him — These Devotional Books are 
authorized, while the Holy Scriptures are suppressed — The Language of Holy 
Scripture as to the Virgin Mary. 

The distinctive cliaracteristic of the Churcli of Rome at the 
present day, is the worship of the Virgin Mary ; not that it is a 
modern invention, hut that it has of late years assumed a 
prominence, all-pervading and all-absorbing, which it had not 
known before. I once remarked to an ecclesiastic in the city 
of Rome, that it appeared to me that the religion of Christ, as 
received in that city, would be more fitly called the religion 
of Mary, He replied, approving the sentiment, and adding 
that every year it was becoming more and more developed 

as THE RELIGION OF MarY ! 

It is important, therefore, that we should understand some- 
thing of the nature and extent of this worship. 

In almost all the devotional books of the Church of Rome 
the Virgin Mary is styled — the mother of God, and in most 
of the pictures and images in the churches she is crowned and 
sceptered and enthroned as — the queen of heaven. These 
titles are so frequently given to her, that they are regarded as 
distinctively belonging to her, as is that of — God of heaven, to 
the Almighty himself. 

The origin of this is far deeper than a mere corruption of 
Christianity. It has its roots a-s deep and as universal a-s 



246 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

human nature. It originated in a symbol — a symbol universal 
among the nations in the darkness of heathenism. The ideal 
of the creative or productive power was intimately connected 
in their minds with the idea of maternity. It was a power 
that conceived and brought forth, and in ages in which it was 
thought necessary to represent the creator or creative power 
under a symbol, it was not unnatural to adopt the symbol of 
a WOMAN, as developing this idea of maternity. Accordingly, 
in almost all the mythologies of ancient times, whether in the 
east or in the west, there was a female divinity — a goddess 
whose maternity was worshiped. In one mythology it was 
Astarte of the Assyrians ; in another it was Ashtoreth of the 
Sidonians ; in another it was Bawaney of the Hindoos. In 
the classic mythology of Greece and of Rome, eclectic as it 
was, there was a Yenus adopted from one, and a Juno from 
another. It is said, that the image of Diana of Ephesus 
was that of a female, from whose body, in every part, there 
seemed to be issuing all the various animals of creation, sym- 
bolizing the conception and production of all things. The 
Egyptians on one hand, and the Etruscans on the other, had 
their Isis, the same symbol, a female divinity whom they re- 
garded as " the mother of the gods." 

Even the Scandinavian mythology had its Freigha ; and of 
the two great systems of religion that held possession of the 
platform of the Roman Empire, namely, Judaism, and the 
classic mythology, the latter styled its Juno, the " Queen of 
Heaven," and the former, when corrupted by the admixture 
of the heathenism around it, was charged by the prophet 
Jeremiah, with having also its " Queen of Heaven." Jer. vii. 
18, and Jer. xliv. 17. This divinity in all the systems had a 
mysterious and indefinite position. Her power and province 
were left very much to the imaginations of her votaries ; it 
would seem as if it was an element congenial with all natural 
mythologies, as answering some impulse or feeling in the fallen 
and natural heart, that there should be the embodiment of 
some such idea — the symbol of the creation or production of 
all things, enthroned among the gods, as the Queen of Heaven. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 247 

Now the argument against the Churcli of Rome is, that she 
has adopted that element of heathenism — that instead of imi- 
tating the pro]3het Jeremiah in denouncing this worship 
among the Jews — instead of following the apostle Paul in 
opposing it among the Gentiles — instead of fighting against 
this tendency of the people of the Roman Empire, she rather 
encouraged it ; and though perhaps with the zealous but ill- 
regulated desire to induce a more easy and extended profession 
of Christianity, she allowed the easterns to accept the Virgin, 
instead of Astarte — their former queen of heaven, and per- 
mitted the westerns to receive Mary, instead of Juno, the 
queen* of heaven they had previously worshiped. It is not 
the least striking fact connected with this, that the two favor- 
ite titles ascribed to Mary in the Church of Rome — namely 
the " queen of Heaven," and " mother of God," are the very 
same titles ascribed to this female divinity — the goddess of 
the ancients. She was entitled in the east — the mother of the 
gods^ and in the west — the queen of heaven ! But, however 
it originated, there is no doubt that Mary is now as much 
recognized as worshiped in the Roman Church, as was the 
queen of heaven in the wide platform of the Roman Empire. 
In all its essential elements the Roman Empire and the 
Roman Church — the Pagan Rome, and the Papal Rome are 
in accord in this matter. The transfer to Mary, of all the de- 
votion previously paid to a Juno, an Astarte, an Ashteroth, or 
an Isis, does not alter the essence of the thing. It is as much 
idolatry to worship Mary, as it was to worship Juno, as the 
queen of heaven. 

There are persons in Italy and Spain who freely and readily 
admit much of this, and say that the prevalence of this con- 
ception, of a female divinity among so many ancient mytholo- 
gies, was as it were the dispersed and scattered element of a 
coming truth — a sort of all-pervading prophecy or anticipation 
of a future reality — a looking into the depths of the future, 
as " coming events cast their shadows before," and that all 
was to be fulfilled in the exaltation of the Virgin Mother. 
They imagine, that as the promise of a Messiah was once 



248 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

universally spread among the families of Noah, and as it 
passed hy tradition through many generations, so the woman, 
through vfhom He was to come, became a hope, a creation in 
their mytholog-ies, and was thus the great archetype of all these 
female dignities of the heathen world. Persons who believe 
this, argue, that when the nations lost all knowledge of the 
true God, and created false gods for their worship, and wor- 
shiped them in his stead, their idolatry consisted not in their 
worship of a god, but in their worshiping a false one ; and 
in like manner the idolatry of the heathen was not their 
worshiping a female divinity, but in worshiping these that 
were false, instead of her who is revealed as the only true one 
— even Mary. This view of the subject is a favorite one in 
countries where Mary is worshiped, not indeed in name and 
title, as a goddess, but with all the same reverence and devo- 
tion and service and worship, as if she were a goddess. There 
can be no question as to the fact that, in those countries, she 
is the divinity prayed to more frequently — loved more fervent- 
ly — ^worshiped more devoutly, and depended on more en- 
tirely, than either God, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Whether 
the Church of Rome approves of this is another question ; 
but of the matter of fact, there can be no doubt whatever. 

All this, it is apparent, only makes the charge of idolatry 
more strictly and painfully applicable. That which was the 
religion of Christ is gradually becoming the religion of Mary. 
And in these countries it is customary, as with us, to speak of 
the religion of Christy so with them to speak of the religion of 
Mary, 

The answer, however, which they usually give on this sub- 
ject is, that they do not worship Mary as a goddess, or as a 
divinity — that they regard her as a creature ; the most exalted 
of all, even as queen t)f angels and of men, but a creature still 
— that they feel as strongly as ourselves the heinous sin of 
giving divine worship to a creature — that they give to her a 
different worship — an inferior worship to that which they give 
to God. And that, inasmuch as they do not worship her as 
God or as a goddess, they are not liable to the charge of idol- 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 249 

atry, which, in their view, consists of giving to a creature that 
kind and degree of worship which belongs only to the Creator. 

I have answered this by reminding them that om- charge 
against the Church of Rome, was not that she worshiped Mary 
as a goddess ; our charge v/as, that she worshiped her as a 
creature ; that knowing her to be only a creature, a w^omai], 
she worshiped her as God only ought to be worshiped. If the 
Church of Rome regarded her as a goddess, and w^orshiped her 
as such, it would at least be consistent ; but regarding her as 
a creature, and worshiping her as a woman, with a religious 
worship which belongs exclusively to God, is the very essence 
of idolatry. 

I have often asked yet further — wherein consists the differ- 
ence between the ivorship paid to Mary, and the worship ren- 
dered to God ? The offering prayer — the presenting hymns of 
praise — the making solemn vows — the consecration of the 
votary to her service — the devoting gifts and ofierings of 
wealth — the dedication of children — the sacrifice of the Mass 
— all these are done to Mary, and in honor of Mary, as well 
as to God, and in honor of God. They pray to her by her 
sufferings beneath the cross. They plead her merits even as 
they do those of Jesus Christ. And therefore I ask — wherein 
consists the distinction in the Church of Rome, between the 
worship paid to Mary, and the worship paid to God ? 

They generally answer this by stating that there are two 
great points of distinction ; that these are so marked as to 
place the two kinds and degrees of worship as wide as the 
poles. The first is, that they never pray through the merits 
of Mary, but only through the merits of Christ ; pleading not 
the merits of a creature, but only the merits of Christ. And 
secondly, that they never pray to Mary as if she could grant 
any thing of herself, of her own power, as if she could grant 
any blessing, but only to exert her influence with Jesus Christ, 
that He may grant the petition. They state that they never 
pray for any thing hy her merits, or ask her to grant any thing 
by her own power. 

This is a statement of fact, and must be examined like every 

11* 



250 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

assertion of fact, and accepted or rejected according to the evi^ 
dence. 

The right and just course in such an investigation is to lay- 
aside the private statements or practices of individuals, and to 
open the devotional books — the prayer-books in use in the 
Church of Eome ; and especially those that are the authorized 
formularies of that Church. 

Is it a fact that in the Church of Rome they do not pray 
through the merits of the Virgin Mary ? 

I. The following is the fonn of absolution as given in " The 
Ursnline Manual" — a book in very general use among the 
Roman Catholics of England : 

" I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. May the 
passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed 
Virgin Mary^ and of all the saints, may whatever good thou 
shalt do, or whatever evil thou shalt suffer, be to thee unto 
the remission of thy sins, the increase of grace and the recom- 
pense of life everlasting. Amen." Edition of 1835, p. 159. 

II. In the " brief account of the Virgin Mary of Mount 
Carmel," published in Ireland, France, and Rome, is the fol- 
lowing explanation of an indulgence. 

" It is a grace by the means of which, some condition being 
annexed by the person granting it, are remitted the penances, 
which should otherwise be done in this world or in Purgatory, 
for the actual sins already remitted through the infinite merits 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Virgin MaryT 

ni. In the " collection of prayers and pious works to which 
indulgences are attached," published with authority at Rome, 
1844, p. 8, we read as follows : 

" This is a treasure, which continues forever in the light of 
God, the treasure of the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, 
of the most Blessed Virgin Mary .... Jesus Christ together 
with his superabundant passion left to the Church militant on 
earth an infinite treasure, not deposited in a measure of meal 
or buried in a field, but committed to the Church to be dis- 
pensed in a wholesome way to the faithful by the blessed 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 251 

Peter, who holds the key of heaven, and by his successors the 
Vicars of Jesus Christ on earth. To the abundance of this 
treasure, the merits of the blessed Virgin Mary assist as a 
help." 

IV. " The Wonders of God," was published in Rome, 1841, 
and in Part I., and Wonder 23, the following is related with 
approval, of the Prioress of St. Martin's at Milan. 

" She was accustomed to pray for the grace of the liberation 
(of the souls in Purgatory) through the merits of the most 
precious blood of the Saviour, and through the ardent love 
which He had shown on the cross. To this prayer she gave 
new efficacy by asking this grace through the merits of the 
Divine Mother, especially through the sufferings she endured 
at the foot of the cross." 

V. In " The Missal," published in England for the use of the 
Laity, 1836, p. 527, there is the following prayer to be used 
in a votive mass. 

" God, who by the most glorious mother of thy Son, 
wast pleased to appoint a new order in thy Church for deliver- 
ing the faithful out of the hands of the infidels, grant, we 
beseech thee, that we may also be delivered from the slavery 
of the devil, 6y her merits and prayers, whom we devoutly 
honor in the instruction of so charitable a work." 

VI. In " The Roman Breviary," in the winter portion and 
in the office of Mary, is the following prayer. 

" May the Lord conducts us to the kingdom of heaven by 
the prayers and merits of the blessed ever- Virgin Mary and 
all the saints^ 

VII. In the service of the Mass, in what is called " the or- 
dinary of the Mass," the priest bows to the altar and prays — 
I cite their own English translation — 

" We beseech thee by the merits of thy saints, whose relics 
are here, and of all thy saints, that thou wouldest vouchsafe 
to forgive me all my sins. Amen." 

VIII. Again in the san:ie, after they commemorate the 
living, the priest goes on : 

*' Cpninaunicating with and honoring, in the first place, the 



252 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

memory of the ever-glorious Virgin Mary^ mother of our 
Lord and God Jesus Christ, as also of his blessed apostles and 
martyrs — through ivhose inerits and prayers, grant that we 
may be always defended by the help of thy protection, through 
the same Christ our Lord. Amen." 

These eight illustrations, sad and painful as they are, might 
be multiphed indefinitely from the Breviary, the Missal, and 
the ordinary books of devotion. They set at rest the question, 
as to whether the Roman Catholics pray through the merits of 
the Virgin Mary, They seem not content with the infinitely 
precious merits of Christ, but require also the merits of Mary ! 
there is nothing more heart-saddening than this ; for there is 
nothing more dishonoring to the merits of the Saviour, or so 
revolting to the spirit of a true Christianity. It is as if the 
merits of Jesus Christ were not adequate — as if they needed 
the merits of Mary — as if the Creator needed the creature ! 

There is a second averment. It is to the effect that thouo:h 
they pray to Mary, it is only for her intercession, and that 
they never suppose that she has any power or can herself do 
any thing, but only that she intercedes for those that pray to 
her. 

This likewise is a question of fact, and must be determined, 
not by the statement of an individual as to his own belief or 
practice, but by evidence. 

In illustrating this from their books, there is not the least 
difficulty except from the abundance of evidence, and still 
more in the grief and soitow that every holy mind will feel in 
the perusal of their language. 

One illustration is from a work published in these countries, 
and most widely circulated. It is entitled " A Brief Account of 
Indulgences, etc., conferred on the Order, etc., of the Virgin 
Mary of Mount Carmel." Dublin, 1826, p. 13. 

" The affection of an earthly mother bears no proportion to 
that of the Virgin, who, to show herself truly the mother of 
those who wear her holy scapular, did not rest fully satisfied 
with having preserved them from bodily harm, and kept them 
out of hell, as far as lies in her, through the mediation of her 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 253 

powerful protection, but also promised as a truly loving 
mother, not enduring -the sight of her dear and beloved chil- 
dren suffering in the flames of Purgatory, that she would free 
them as soon as possible, particularly on the first Saturday 
after their death, as being a day set aside for her honor, and 
bring them to eternal joy in Paradise." 

The whole is minutely related, and confirmed by Pope 
John XXII. in the Bull published in March, 1822. 

Again, in order that the authority for all this may be 
clearly seen and received by the members of the Order, they 
are informed not only of the grant of this Bull of Pope John 
XXII. but of its confirmation by no less than four subsequent 
popes. It continues, 

" This extraordinary Bull, called * The Sabbatine,' was con- 
firmed in 1412, by the Sovereign Pontifi*, Alexander V. by 
another Bull, which commences, Tenore cujusdam Privilegii, 
and by Clement VII. in his Apostolic Bull given in favor of 
the Carmelites, in 1524, the first words of which are Dilecti 
filiiy which, after recounting the indulgences and privileges 
given to these, continues thus, ' And on their departure from 
this life, the glorious Virgin mother of God herself, will, on 
the Saturday succeeding the death of the members, whether 
brother monks, or sister nuns, visit them, and free their souls 
from the punishment of Purgatory.' Pius V. confirmed their 
privilege, in a Bull in 1566, and the Sovereign Pontifi', Greg- 
ory, in a Bull in 1577, which contains a confirmation of all 
favors, indulgences, and privileges of the Carmelite order, 
specifying the day to be Saturday, in conformity with the 
revelation of the Virgin, etc." 

This descent of the Virgin into Purgatory, apparently de- 
signed as a set-off" or parallel to our Lord's supposed descent 
to the same region, is not only published in these countries, 
but also published with authority at Rome itself, during the 
time of Gregory XVI. The following is from the " Wonders 
of God." Rome, 1841, vol. ii. p. 31. 

"Among the other devotions to the Queen of Heaven, 
which give great hope, and promise the precious grace of 



254 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

rising quickly from the sufferings of Purgatory and passing 
away to tlie joys of heaven, the princii^le is that which is com- 
monly called that of Mount Carmel — especially in the Bull, 
called " The Sabbatine," and in the decree of the Sacred Con- 
gregation, they assert, that the most Blessed Virgin, is ascer- 
tained to concede to the professors of this devotion — the hb- 
eration from Purgatory, to their great rehef from pmiishment, 
on the first Saturday after their death." 

Here is the Bull of one Pope confirmed by four Bulls from 
four subsequent popes, and republished by Gregory XVI. in 
1841, teaching that the Virgin Mary herself visits Purgatory 
every Saturday and releases certain privileged persons. The 
extent of the Order of the Scapular, or as they are usually 
called, Carmelites, and Scapularians, is demonstrative of the 
extent of faith in the reaUty of this ; and as it is impossible to 
call this the intercession of Mary — as it can only be regarded 
as her own act — the act of descending to Purgatory — the act 
of saving from its sufierings — the act of biinging the souls 
thence to Heaven, proves the behef of her hanng power in 
herself to do these thing-s. It is evidently not her asking her 
Son, or interceding with him to do them, but she does them 
herself. 

The following illusti'ates the full extent of the power she is 
supposed to possess, not indeed inherently, but by cession 
from her Son. We read in " The Glories of Mary," by Saint 
Alphonso de Liguori : 

"St. Bernardine of Sienna does not fear to advance that 
all, even Qod himself^ is subject to the empire of Mary, The 
saint wishes to insinuate thereby, that God hears Mary's 
prayers, as if they were commands. The Lord, O Mary, says 
St. Anselm, has so exalted you that his favor has rendered 
you omnipotent ! yes, says Richard of St. Lawrence, Mary is 
omnipotent, for according to all laws the queen enjoys the 
SAME PRIVILEGES as the king, and that power may be equal 
between the Son and the mother. Jesus has rendered Mary 
OMNIPOTENT ; the one is omnipotent by nature, the other is 
omnipotent by gi'ace," c. vi. sec. 1. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 255 

There is here an ascription of the Divine attribute of mo- 
NiPOTENCE to Mary. There is also an assertion of an equal- 
ity in " privilege" and in " power" with Jesus Christ. There 
is also a statement that God himself is subject to the empire 
of Mary. As this awful statement professes to be founded on 
a saying of Saint Bernardine, the original words may here be 
cited. The words of Saint Bernardine are these : 

''As many creatures serve the glorious Virgin Mary as 
serve the Trinity, namely, all created things, whatsoever de- 
gree they may hold in creation, whether spiritual as angels, 
or rational as men, or corporeal as the heavenly bodies or the 
elements. And all things that are in Heaven and in earth, 
whether they be the damned or the blessed, all which are 
brought under the government of God^ are likewise subject to 
the glorious Virgin, Forasmuch as He, who is the Son of 
God, and of the blessed Virgin, wishing to make the sovereignty 
of his mother equal in some sort to the sovereignty of his 
Father^ even He, who was God, served his mother on earth. 
Whence, Lube ii. 51, it is written of the Virgin and the 
glorious Joseph, ' He was subject unto them,' that as this 
proposition is true — all things are subject to the command of 
God, even the Virgin herself, so this again is also true — all 
things are subject to the command of the Virgin^ even God 
himselfr 

These words make the government of the Virgin co-exten- 
sive with the government of God. They also expressly state 
that Christ has willed the sovereignty of the Mother to be 
equal with the sovereignty of the Father. They also state 
that as the Virgin is subject unto God, so it is equally true 
that God is subject to the Virgin ! 

These are the sentiments of Saint Bernardine and Saint 
Alphonso de Liguori. And in the act of canonization of the 
saints, it is declared by the Church of Rome, that there is no 
error contained in their writings. These w^ords, therefore, are 
pronounced to be free from error ! And yet a Christian can 
not read them without inexpressible sadness and dread. 

This system of placing Mary practically on an equality with 



256 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Christ is carried out in a variety of ways. The following 
prayer is a well-known instance : 

" Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, have mercy on us. 

" Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, receive my last breath. 

" Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, receive me now and in the hour 
of death." 

Another illustration is in the closing words of " The Glories 
of Mary." 

" Jesus ! O Mary ! may your names live in my heart and 
in the hearts of all men ! may I forget all other names in 
order to remember your admirable names alone ! O Jesus, 
my Redeemer ! O Mary, my Mother ! when my last hour 
shall come, when my soul shall be at the eve of its departure 
from the world, grant, I beseech you, that my last words may 
be — Jesus ! Mary ! I love you ! Jesus ! Mary ! I give you 
my heart and my soul. Amen." 

This certainly places Mary on an equality with Christ as 
one to be prayed to, invoked, and loved alike. The Spanish 
form of the doxology is still more striking : 

" Glory be to the Father. 

" Glory be to the Son. 

" Gloiy be to the Holy Ghost. 

" Glory be to the Most Holy Virgin. 

" Throughout all ages, forever and ever. Amen !" * 

It is due to many Roman Catholics of the laity, to say that 
I have never read these and similar passages from the de- 
votional books of the Church of Rome, while conversing with 
her members, without observing shame and confusion in the 
faces of my opponents. It is the homage they are forced to 
pay to truth. It is always apparent that they feel such lan- 
guage to be blasphemous and idolatrous ; or, at least, that it 
approaches thereto — that it justifies the strong feeling that 
we manifest against the practice ; that such language com- 
pletely cuts away the ground under their feet ; and it comes 
before them vexatiously when arguing with us ; and they have 

* See Meyrick's '' Working of the Church in Spain." 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 257 

no answer or explanation further than, that these passages 
have a meaning widely different from what they seem to con- 
vey — that they are to be understood in what they call a Catho- 
lic sense — that a Catholic reads them with a Catholic sense ; 
and that they do no harm to one who knows that, however 
idolatrous and blasphemous the language may seem, yet it is 
not to be understood in that sense. I have asked what that 
Catholic sense was, and I never could learn it. It certainly 
must be something very different from the natural construc- 
tion of the words. 

I have pressed this matter further ; I have asserted that in 
these books they not only place Mary sometimes on an equal- 
ity with Christ, but sometimes above him. 

And first for placing her on an equality with Christ. 

I can never, while I live, forget the shock I received when 
I first saw in their churches in Italy the Virgin Mary crowned 
as Queen of Heaven, seated on the same throne with Jesus 
crowned as King of Heaven. They were the God-man and 
the God-woman enthroned alike. In all my previous experi- 
ence of Romanism it never occurred to me for a moment that 
any thing so truly awful could possibly have been perpetrated. 
I felt the shock ; every holy feeling felt its violence ; no 
heathen idolatry could have done more. There were Jesus 
and Mary, crowned alike, enthroned alike, bearing a scepter 
alike. There was nothing to distinguish one above the other. 
They appeared precisely like a Jupiter and Juno, like a man 
and wi?fe, like a king and queen. And I loathed in my soul 
such representations, as elevating the creature Mary to a level 
with the God Christ, or lowering the God Christ to a level 
with the creature Mary. It made them both on an equality. 
They were god and goddess, or they were merely man and 
woman. I soon found that this pervaded the whole region 
of Italy. However kindly I might be disposed to interpret or 
explain, and howevery gently I might be disposed to judge, I 
could not shut my eyes or ears to the evidence that there was 
a manifest tendency to exalt Mary to a level with Jesus, that 
she should be crowned, sceptered, and enthroned alike, and 



258 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that she should be loved and served and worshiped alike, and 
that Christianity should be made the rehgion of Maiy as well 
as the relio-ion of Christ."^ 

o 

But this was by no means the only or most sad evidence of 
an equality. It is painful — it is saddening, to commit the 
dark and dreary reality to paper. It is enough to freeze the 
blood of any Christian man ; and yet it is the common, I may 
say, the universal faith of Southern Europe. It is this : what- 
ever were the mysteries or glories connected with the mir- 
aculous conception, the miraculous birth, the miraculous 
resurrection, the miraculous ascension ; whatever were the 
mysteries of wonder and of awe in the history of Jesus Christ, 
they are all copied or rather travestied and applied to the 
Virgin Mary ; so as that she may appear as wondrous a person 
as Jesus Christ, as having been characterized by an immacul- 
ate conception as miraculous, a birth as wonderful, a resur- 
rection as marvelous, and an ascension or assumption as 
glorious. Whatever were the miracles of awe and of mys- 
tery and of glory connected with one, are claimed and attrib- 
uted to the other. And to such an extent is this carried, that 
in some of their churches the paintings on one side represent 
the striking incidents that give wonder to the birth and life 
and death of Jesus Christ, and on the other side the very same 
or similar incidents as characteristic of the birth and life and 
death of the Virgin Mary. For example, if on one side of the 
church there is painted the angel announcing to Mary the 
miraculous conception of Jesus, it is paralleled by another on 
the other side, representing an angel announcing to Anna the 
immaculate conception of Mary. If there be on one side the 
miraculous birth and the infancy of the Son, there will be on 

* In the Baptistery of Parma there is a representation of the Trinity. 
At the top of the triangle is the Father. At the two angles of the 
base are the Son and the Mother ; the two arms of the Father resting 
on the heads of the Son and Mary, form the legs of the triangle ; while 
the arms of the Son, extended to the head of Mary, form the base. I 
looked at it with horror ! The Sacristan smiled, and called it the 
Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Yirgin. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 259 

the other the birth and infancy of the mother. If here there 
is a representation of the reception of the child Jesus by the 
High Priest in the temple, there is another representing the 
presentation of the child Mary under similar circumstances. 
In one compartment there may be seen represented the death 
of the Saviour, and opposite may be seen in another compart- 
ment a representation of all connected with the death of the 
Virgin. Here we see portrayed all connected with the resur- 
rection of the Lord, and there we see in like manner all the 
apocryphal details of the resurrection of the Mother. On one 
side may be seen all that human art can do to exhibit the 
glories of the ascension of Jesus Christ, and on the other side 
all that the most exquisite art can accomplish to represent the 
glories of the assumption of Mary. Here the eye is arrested 
to see the paintings of Jesus Christ entering the heavens and 
enthroned and crowned as the King of Heaven, and there the 
eye is attracted to another painting of Mary entering the 
heavens and enthroned and crowned as Queen of Heaven. In 
all the miracles and mysteries of His life, she is placed on a 
level with Him. If she is not the rival, she certainly is the 
equal in every wonder and mystery. And, therefore, in one 
half the churches of Italy, Mary may be seen crowned with a 
lite crown, seated on the same throne, and holding a similar 
scepter with Jesus Christ. It is impossible to see all this and 
not feel that it embodies an item in the popular faith of the 
Church of Rome ; and that she, in authorizing these pictures 
in her churches, does authorize the notion, so prevalent, that 
the Virgin Mary is the equal of Jesus Christ ; not, indeed, in 
the essence of her nature, but in something which she has never 
defined, and which is left to the imaginations of her votaries. 
The Church of Rome has taken away the Holy Scriptures, 
and has given these pictures to the people in their stead. God 
gave the Holy Scriptures to teach the people, and the Church 
of Rome has taken them away, on the ground that the people 
might mistake their meaning; and she has given in their 
stead these pictures, which are still more liable to lead them 
astray. God has permitted no error in that Book which He 



260 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

has given ; and the Church of Rome was bound to see that 
there was no error in these pictures which she has substituted 
for them. The truth is, that the Holy Scriptures do not teach 
the doctrines of Rome, and therefore she has removed them ; 
while those pictures do teach her unscriptural tenets; and 
therefore she allows them. The people naturally think that 
what is permitted to be seen in the Church is authorized by 
the Church. These pictures come before them with all the 
apparent sanction of the Church ; and no one can be sur- 
prised that, seeing them, they regard Mary as equal with 
Jesus Christ. 

I have sometimes called the attention of my Roman Cath- 
olic ft'iends to the practice in the Church of Rome of taking 
those passages of the Holy Scripture which are applicable 
only to Jesus Christ, and applying them to Mary ; and even 
going so far as to apply to her the distinctive titles that be- 
long to Him. In the devotional books of that Church, even 
in her authorized litanies, as the litany of the Virgin, the very 
titles that in Holy Scripture are applied to Jesus Christ are 
addressed to her. In the Holy Scripture He is styled " the 
Advocate with the Father ;" in those books she is addressed 
as " our advocate." If in Holy Scripture He is called " the 
one Mediator," in these books she is called " our mediator, or 
mediatrix." If in Holy Scripture He is described as " the 
.Door," or Gate, in these books she is designated as " the 
gate." If in Holy Scripture He is described as the " Refuge 
for sinners," in these books she is likewise declared to be the 
refuge for sinners. If in the word of God He is called " the 
Father of mercies," she is styled in these books " the mother 
of mercy." If in Holy Scriptures He is " our Saviour," in 
these books she is also designated " our saviour." If He is 
styled in Scripture " the Good Shepherd," she is called " the 
divine shepherdess." If He is "• our Lord," she is " our lady ;" 
and if He is the " King of Heaven," she is proclaimed the 
" queen of heaven." She is thus, as far as the language of 
Holy Scripture goes, placed on an equality with Him ; and 
although they profess not to mean or intend this, yet it is 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 261 

enongli that they do it, and that every one who reads their 
devotional books may see it, and read it for themselves. 

And not only this : they have gone further ; for in the well- 
known Psalter of Saint Bonaventura, a portion of which was 
republished with authority in Rome, in 1844, every prayer, 
every blessing, every thanksgiving that the sacred Psalmist 
addressed to G@d, is altered and adapted to the Virgin Mary, 
as being to be ascribed to her, and prayed of her. The title 
" God" is omitted, and " Mary" substituted for it. The title 
"Lord" is removed, and " lady" inserted in its stead. The 
awful character of this blasphemy and sacrilege can only be 
understood by examples. Even the Lord's prayer is altered 
and addressed to her — " Our lady who art in heaven, hallowed 
be thy name," etc. ; and the Te Deum is changed and ad- 
dressed to her — " We praise thee, O Mary ; we acknowledge 
thee to be the lady," etc. 

And now, as to elevating Mary ahove Christ. 

These devotional books proceed further. If they sometimes 
elevate Mary to be the equal with Christ, they also sometimes 
elevate her beyond and above Him in all the attributes of 
mercy and love. I have myself been witness to this ; for in 
my conversations with the priests at Rome, they repeatedly 
asserted that as Christ was the Judge who must deal justice, 
and as Mary was the " mother of mercy," who could exercise 
pity and love ; so it was better for us to pray through her 
than through Christ ; — that His nature and characteristic was 
justice and not mercy ; and that hers was mercy and not jus- 
tice : and that God heard those prayers sooner which were 
offered through her, than those that were offered through 
Him. This belief is prevalent now universally in the south 
of Europe. 

The following passage from " The Glories of Mary" will il- 
lustrate this in their own words, c. 4. sec. 1. 

" In order to increase our confidence in Mary, Saint An- 
selm a-ssures us that our 'prayers will often he more speedily 
heard in invoicing her name^ than in calling on that of Jesus 
Christ ; and the reason he assigns is, that Jesus being no less 



262 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

our Judge than our Saviour, he must avenge the wrongs we 
do him by our sins. While the Holy Virgin being solely our 
advocate, is obliged to entertain only sentiments of pity for us. 
We are far- from insinuating, nevertheless that she is more 
powerful than her son ; Jesus Christ is our only Mediator, He 
alone has obtained our reconciliation with God the Father ; 
but as in rendering to Him, whom we must necessarily con- 
sider a judge who will punish the ungrateful, it is probable a 
sentiment of fear may lesson the confidence necessary for be- 
ing heard, it would seem that in applying to Mary, whose of- 
fice is that of mercy, our hope would be so strong as to obtain 
all we ask for. How is itj that whereas we ask r)iany things 
of God without obtaining them^ we no sooner ask through Mary 
than they are granted us .^" 

This assuredly is strong language, and as strange as it is 
strong. It plainly teaches, that prayers presented through 
Mary are more readily heard than prayers presented through 
Jesus Christ. It is practically dashing the Mediatorial crown 
from the brow of Jesus, and hurhng Him from the Mediatorial 
throne ; and as a greater blasphemy could not be uttered, so 
a greater sacrilege could not be committed by man or devil. 
But it does not stand alone. Let the following speak for it- 
self. 

" We read in the chronicles of St. Francis, that brother Leo 
once saw in a vision, two ladders, one red, on the summit of 
which was Jesus Christ, and the other white, on the top of 
which presided his blessed Mother. He observed that many 
who endeavored to ascend the first ladder, after mounting a 
few steps, fell down. And on trying again were equally un- 
successful, so that they never attained the summit. But a 
voice having told them to make trial of the white ladder, they 
soon gained the top, the blessed Virgin having held forth her 
hands to help them." c. 8. sec. 3. 

These are the words of Saint Alphonso, in whose writings 
it is asserted that there are no errors. And these words are 
from that very book of which a new edition has been publish- 
ed, with the authority and recommendation of Cardinal Wise- 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 263 

man. And yet these words plainly teach that those who seek 
to enter heaven by Jesus Christ " never attain the summit," 
while those who approach through the Virgin Mary " soon 
reach" their place of glory ! 

It is plainly implied by the former extract, that Mary is 
more accessible, more pitiful, more merciful than Jesus Christ ; 
at least that He is a Judge to avenge, and she is an advocate to 
compassionate — that He is all justice, and she is all mercy — 
and that our prayers when offered through her are more easily 
and quickly answered than when offered through him. This 
certainly is placing Mary above Christ, in that which is the 
gem of the royal diadem, mercy and compassion. In the 
second extract this is carried out to its natural sequence. 
Those that approach heaven by Christ fail. Those that ap- 
proach by Mary succeed. And this at least is placing 
her above him, in the matter of our salvation. The ladder or 
way red with his blood has failed ; while that which is white 
with her virginity is found to succeed. Christ is described as 
giving no help. Mary is pictured as putting forth her hand 
and saving ! 

Such language frightens one. To say that it was supersti- 
tion, or idolatry, or blasphemy, or heresy, is only to give it 
a hard and bad name. And I have never known good effect- 
ed by hard or bad names. But language such as this makes 
the heart beat. It frightens one. 

Nor must it be supposed that this language is antiquated or 
foreign. I had myself heard it from the lips of living divines 
from the Church of Rome during my residence in that city. 
It was there stated to me, that ^' Christ himself was not so will- 
ing to hear our prayers, and did not hear them so quickly 
when offered simply to himself, as when they were offered 
through the Blessed Virgin." 

A Roman Catholic periodical in England — "The Rambler," 
in reviewing this statement, has the following startling 
passage : — 

"In one sense, the blessed Virgin Mary is more sure to 
hear our prayers than our Blessed Lord. It is the privilege 



264 . EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

of Mary to share the loving-kindness of her Son toward sin- 
ners, and not to execute his wrath upon them. And there- 
fore she is all mercy ^ while he is both mercy and justice. Her 
mercy, indeed, is but the mercy of a creature, while His is 
that of the omnipotent God. Her love is that of an Interces- 
sor, His the love of a Kedeemer. But nevertheless, the only 
office she is commissioned to fulfill toward us is one of pity, and 
thus in one sense a siiinerh prayers are more sure to he heard 
hy her than by her Sony 

And thus He, who left the heavens in lo\'ing-compassion for 
us — who walked our fallen world in melting pity for us — who 
bled, and died, and suffered in an unquenchable love for us — 
who even now intercedes in the heavens in sympathy for us — 
is described as not compassionating us, not pitying us, not 
loving us, not sympathizing with us, so much as Mary ! The 
Creator must thus vail and retire before the creature ! How 
strangely significant were the words addressed by an apostle 
to the Church of Rome, " They worshiped and served the 
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. 
Amen." — Rom. i. 25. 

As this charge is the most awful that can be adduced against 
a professing Church, it is no more than comn:on justice, that 
their reply should be heard. That reply is different, according 
to the different class of religionists of Rome, to whom the 
argument is addressed. 

Those members of the Church of Rome, who aj'e the de- 
votional, pious, religious, and generally those of Italy and 
Spain, avow all this language toward Mary, and defend it as 
admissible. They have no desire either to change or to soften 
it. They are so unacquainted with the Scriptures — so utterly 
ignorant of scriptural Christianity, that they do not see any 
thing wrong or objectionable in all this elevation of Mary ; on 
the other hand, they regard it as right and fitting. It falls in 
with all their religious systems, they are endeavoring to elevate 
the worship of Mary more and more every day, and they an- 
ticipate, so to speak, her perfect, and supreme elevation. A 
Roman lady, one day said in my presence, " that the hope of 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 265 

spreading true morality in Italy was most promising, because 
the religion of the most holy Mary was so much extending." 
And one of the priests of that city stated to myself, that " the 
religion of Christ was every day becoming more and more the 
" religion of Mary," and he spoke this as approving of the 
change — the transition is gradual but certain. In order, 
therefore, to raise her from the inferior or vailed position 
which she has hitherto held in the ideal of Christianity, they 
have no hesitation in having recourse to every extravagance of 
language and of worship, so as to elevate her on high, and so 
to speak, to unveil her before the eyes of her votaries. When, 
therefore, this devout, pious, and religious class of Romanists, 
hears these passages of their devotional books read as objection- 
able, they at once adopt them and justify them ; they are as 
much surprised at our rejecting them as we are at their 
receiving them. 

There is another class, however, in the Church of Rome, 
who look on all this as the extravagance of the devout and 
superstitious. They always profess to dislike such language, 
as calculated to impair the character of the Church of Rome 
in the eyes of Protestants, and that for that cause they profess 
to regret and deplore it. They think it may do very well for 
the ignorant masses, and therefore they are unwilling to speak 
against it ; and they argue, with some show of justice and 
reason, when they say that it is not fair to judge the Church 
of Rome by these books. 

The answer which I have given to this has generally silenced 
these persons. I have reminded them that there is one book 
— a book unspeakably valued and cherished among us as the 
Book of books — the Holy Scriptures, which, though divinely 
inspired, and therefore containing no error whatever, the 
Church of Rome has prohibited, on the avowed ground that 
its language is liable to be mistaken by the simple and ignorant. 
The Church of Rome, in the decree of the congregation of the 
Index, has prohibited the perusal of this book by the laity, 
unless where the bishop gives license, as thinking it may be 
read without danger — has prohibited its being sold by any 

12 



266 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

bookseller, unless with permission from the bishop — and has 
prohibited its being read even by the regular clergy, ^. e., by 
the monastic orders, unless under a like permission."* I have 
said, that it was a fact — a broad and great fact — that the 
Church of Kome professed to prohibit such books as were 
likely to injure the faith of her people, and so to prohibit the 
Holy Scriptures on the ground that they were liable to bo 
mistaken by the simple and ignorant. Now, I ask — why she 
has not prohibited these devotional books if she thinks them 
liable to be mistaken by the simple and ignorant ? And why 
do not you, I have said to the priests — why do not you, who are 
so active in suppressing the reading of the Holy Scriptures on 
the ground of their liability to being mistaken — why do not you 
use the same activity in suppressing these devotional books, if 
indeed you disapprove of them, or think them liable to bQ 
mistaken ? And does not your zeal against the Holy Scrip- 
tures seem to imply that the people may learn more evil from 
them than from these books, which you say you disapprove 
of? And as to their being authorized or not by the Church, 
it should be remembered that they are often pubhshed with 
authority in Rome herself, and that too in a place where the 
press is so scrupulously watolied, that no man could publish 
or sell the Holy Scriptures. Why do they not at Rome, 
or elsewhere, prohibit the publication of these books, as well 
as of the Holy Scriptures ? The fact that they prohibit the 
publication of the Holy Scriptures, and the fact that they 
authorize the publication of these books, must stand as proof 
that they approve of these more than of the Holy Scriptures. 

And now the question comes — What saith the Scripture ? 

The contrast is striking indeed. The devotional books of 
the Church of Rome are full, even to overflowing of the re- 
ligion of Mary. The Holy Scriptures contain nothing of it, 
but only the religion of Christ, 

The Holy Scriptures " given by inspiration of God," and 
" able to make us wise unto salvation through faith," say 

* These several provisions are contained in the decree of the Index 
concerning the Holy Scriptures. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 26l 

nothing whatever respecting her birth, as little as possible con- 
cerning her life, and not one word about her death. This si- 
lence is significant. 

But the Church of Eome, instead of imitating the Divine 
silence, has supplied material in abundance ; she professes to tell 
us all about the marriage of her parents — her own miraculous 
birth — the incidents of her childhood — ^her intercourse with 
Joseph — ^her betrothal and mariiage — ^her conversations with 
the kings of the east — her after life — her death, burial, and 
assumption into heaven — her coronation as queen of heaven, of 
angels and of saints ! An inventive genius has not been wanting. 

There is in all that concerns Mary, a strange contrast in- 
deed between the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the 
Church of Eome. 

It is not the least remarkable fact of the gospel history, that 
it does not give a single instance of our Lord's having addressed 
Mary as Ids mother. The gospels omit all mention of his 
childhood, except that he was subject to his parents, and of 
course that they directed him as his parents, and that he 
obeyed them as their child. But in all his ministerial life — 
from the moment of his manifesting his Messiahship — from 
the baptism in the Jordan, he never once addresses Mary as 
his mother^ He seems never to have recognized her as such. 

There are only three instances in the Holy Scriptures where 
our Lord is described as speaking to Mary. 

L The first occurred in his childhood. He left his parents, 
and they knew not where he was. They found him among 
the doctors in the temple. The Gospel narrates, Luke ii. 48- 
51, that " when they saw him, they were amazed, and his 
mother said unto him. Son, v/hy hast thou thus dealt with us ? 
behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he 
said unto them. How is it that ye sought me ? wist ye not 
that I must be about my Father's business ? And they un- 
derstood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he 
went dcTwn with them, and became subject unto them : but 
his mother kept all these sayings in her heart." This incident 
occurred in his childhood, and these his first words detailed as 



268 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

addressed to Mary, certainly do not justify any veiy extrava- 
gant devotional language toward her on our part. 

11. The next occasion was after he had commenced his 
public teaching. The Gospel narrates, John ii. 3, 4, " When 
they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they 
have no wine. Jesus saith unto her. Woman, what have I to 
do with thee ? mine hour is not yet come." He here ad- 
dresses her not as his " mother," but simply as " woman," a 
term not of contempt or of slight, but the term of respect or 
courtesy ordinarily applied to females. He thus addresses her 
with no peculiar deference, but only with the same language 
in which he would have addressed any other woman present. 
And when he adds " What have I to do with thee ?" or as the 
Eoman Catholics translate it, " What is it to me, and to thee ?" 
the wordfi seem to convey some gentle reproof for her inter- 
ference, implying that he could not recognize any thing in 
common between them — any relation which could justify her 
interfering ; and though she might think the time was come 
for his intended miracle, he prefeiTcd waiting longer, " My 
time," he said, " is not yet come." 

ni. The last instance of his addressing Mary was on the 
cross. He could then see her natural sorrows — the sorrows of 
a mother beside a dying son. One might suppose it the occa- 
sion of drawing from him language of touching endearment 
and tenderness — but no. He knew what was in man, and 
knew that any endearing or tender words toward her might 
and would be perverted into words to justify the worship of a 
woman. He therefore would not even call her his mother ; 
he addressed her only as he would have addressed any other 
female, " Woman." And he commits her, now widowed, 
childless, destitute, to the care of his loved disciple John ; and 
desires her to regard John in future as her son, and desires 
John to protect her as his mother in future. " Woman," said 
he, " behold thy son !" and addressing John — " Behold thy 
mother 1" And in obedience to this dying wish, the beloved 
disciple " took her unto his own home." John was to be a 
son to Mary, and Mary was to be a mother to John. 



THE VIRGIN MART. 269 

In these, wliicli are the only instances in whicli our Lord is 
described as having spoken to Mary, there certainly is nothing 
to warrant the high, extreme, extravagant language of devo- 
tion v^^hich characterizes the devotional books of the Church 
of Rome. On the other hand, the fact — the simple facts — that 
in all the gospel history these are the only instances recorded ; 
the simple fact that there is a settled, formal, deliberate silence 
on the subject, is calculated to convey the feeling that the 
Holy Ghost designed to cut away all excuse or occasion or 
ground for such language of devotion and worship, as He, who 
knew the future as well as the present, foresaw would be in- 
troduced into the Church. 

But the Holy Scriptures go further than this. Our Lord 
is described as speaking twice about his mother ; and on both 
occasions his words bear a wonderful significance. 

L The first is in Matt. xii. 46—" While he yet talked to 
the people, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, 
desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him. Behold, 
thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak 
with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, 
Who is my mother ? and who are my brethren ? And he 
stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said. Behold 
my mother and my brethren ! For whosoever shall do the 
will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my brother, 
and sister, and mother." He thus heard of Mary wishing to 
speak with him ; He does not comply ; He remains as he 
was ; and though He had then the opportunity of magnifying 
her before the eyes of all. He carefully avoids it, and seems 
not so much as to recognize her as His mother. He asks — 
" Who is my mother V and he answers the question Himself 
— " Whosoever will do the will of my Father which is in 
Heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." 
Whatever the tie or the love He owed a mother, should now 
be the tie and love which He would feel for all who do the 
will of God ; and other relationship He recognized not. He 
was now the manifested Messiah, and He knew no ties on 



270 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

earth but that common manhood which gave Him sympathy 
with all the peo2)le of God. 

n. The second instance in which He is narrated as speak- 
ing of His mother is still more remarkable. Luke xi. 27 — 
" It came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman 
of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him. Blessed 
is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast 
sucked. But he said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear 
the word of God, and keep it." Here is a woman, in the feel- 
ing so natural in a woman, blessing her who was the mother 
of Jesus. She blesses the womb that bore Him and the 
breasts which suckled Him. It is to this day the universal 
argument among the members of the Church of Rome. And 
here we learn how our Lord regarded it. His answer is re- 
markable ; " Yea," was his confirmation of the words of the 
woman. She was indeed blessed who had borne and suckled 
Him ; but there was a greater blessedness stiU than this — and 
however great was the blessedness of Mary as His mother, 
there was a blessedness still greater which every Christian 
woman may possess ; for, " rather blessed," that is, " more 
blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." If, 
then, any woman among us vfould have a blessedness, still 
greater than that which Mary possessed, as his mother, sbe 
has only to hear the word of God and keep it. 

Truly there is a great contrast between the words of the 
Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Church of Rome. 

One only consideration remains ; it is that connected with 
what is called — ^most untruly called — the Angelical Salutation. 

A young man, a fine, open, generous fellow, who was very 
earnest and zealous for the religion of Rome, stopped me one 
day to ask me whether " the Angelical Salutation" was not in 
the Holy Scriptures ; that a Protestant had denied it to him ; 
and he wished to hear it from myself. 

I asked him to repeat it for me. 

He did so. — " Hail, Mary, full of gi'ace, the Lord is with 
thee. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 27 1 

" Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit 
of tliy womb — Jesus. 

" Holy Maiy, pray for us now and at the hour of death. 
Amen." 

I then said, that it consisted of three parts. There was, 
first, the salutation of the angel : there was, next, the words 
of Elizabeth, the mother of the Baptist : and, lastly, there 
was a prayer of the Church of Eome, which is not in the 
Holy Scriptures at all. 

He did not seem quite to understand me ; so I produced 
my little Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament, 
and showed him the place in Luke, i. 28 — " Hail, full of grace, 
the Lord 19 with thee, blessed art thou among women." 
There is nothing more, I remarked, in the angel's salutation. 

He read it again and again ; he was inexpressibly puzzled ; 
but, he asked me, where was the rest of it ? Was not the 
rest of it a part of the Angelical Salutation ? 

I replied, of course, that it was not, and showed him the 
second part of it in Luke, i. 42. It was not the angel — ^it 
was Ehzabeth who said, " Blessed art thou among women, and 
blessed is the fruit of thy womb." I desired him to read it 
for himself. 

He read it, and paused, and read it again and again, and 
asked where was the remainder of it ? He seemed perplexed, 
and, as I thought, angered and chagrined. 

I said, that the third part was, " Holy Mary, pray for us 
now and at the hour of death," and this was not spoken by 
the angel, nor by Elizabeth, and was not in the Holy Scrip- 
tures at all. It was the mere invention of the priests of Rome. 
And, I added, it was wickedly added to the angel's salutation ; 
— ^it had been wickedly taught to you under the name of the 
angel's salutation ; — ^it has been wickedly done to deceive you 
into the beUef that the angel prayed to Mary, that you might 
be induced to think it could not be wrong for you to do what 
the angel did, and thus to pray to Mary to pray for you. 
Here is the Roman Catholic translation ; you can judge for 
yourself. 



272 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

He looked on the ground for a few moments — clasped his 
hands almost convulsively — covered his face with his hands — 
then letting them fall, he said, with a voice of deep pathos — 
O, sir, when our clergy deceive us, poor, ignorant people, thus, 
what is to become of us, and what are we to believe ? He 
spoke with intense earnestness. 

I said — God has given to you His word, the Holy Scrip- 
tures : He has told you " they are able to make thee wise 
unto salvation through faith." He has commanded you to 
" search the Scriptures ;" read and believe them, and then no 
man shall be able to deceive you. 

I believe you are right, was his only reply, as he left me 
very thoughtfully. • 

It may here be noticed that there is nothing in the angel's 
salutation to justify either prayer or worship to the Virgin Mary. 

The word, "Hail" does not justify it, for it was only the 
ordinary salute of the time, and was addressed by our Lord 
himself to his disciples : he said, "All hail," when certainly he 
did not pray to them nor worship them. — ^IMatt. xxviii. 9. 

The words — " The Lord be with thee," do not justify it, for 
the very same words are addressed also by the angel to Gideon, 
" The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valor ;" Judges 
vi. 12, and certainly they do not entitle Gideon to any worship. 

The words — " Thou art highly favored," or, as the Roman- 
ists translate it, "full of grace," will not justify it, for the same 
words, indeed stronger, are addressed to the prophet Daniel — 
"O man, greatly beloved," Dan. x. 19, and such words do not 
imply prayer or worship to him. 

The words — " Blessed art thou among women," as spoken 
to Mary, are no more than the words spoken of Jael — " Blessed 
shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be ; blessed shall she 
be above women in the tent ;" Judges v. 24. Such words do 
not justify prayer or worship, either to Jael on one hand, or 
to the Virgin Mary on the other. 

Let us think of Mary with tender affection, as of the mother 
of Jesus ; but let us neither pray to her nor worship her ; for 
prayer and worship belong exclusively to the Godhead. 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 

The Canons of Trent on the Priesthood and on the Mass — Occasion of this Conver- 
sation — The Sacrifice among Protestants — The figurative Application of the Term 
— The Priesthood of Jesus Christ — The Christian Ministry never called a Priest- 
hood in Scripture — The only Priesthood on Earth is that of all Believers — The 
Sufficiency of Jesus Christ — The true Meaning of the Terms Priest and Pres- 
byter. 

There are few subjects at issue between the Cliurcli of 
Rome and ourselves, upon which I have been more frequently 
engaged in discussion, than on the sacrifice of the Mass. Its 
own innate importance, arising out 'of the principles it in- 
volves — the great value placed upon it by its votaries — its 
being regarded as their " morning and evening sacrifice," the 
greatest and highest of all their rites, and the most efficacious, 
and precious, and important of all the mysteries of their faith, 
always invests its discussion with a prominence and an in- 
terest peculiarly its own. The most essential and character- 
istic elements of Romanism are all interwreathed and involved 
in it. And all the grandest truths of a Protestant Christianity 
are drawn out and engaged against it. It has thus naturally 
become in my intercourse with Romanists, a constant subject 
of controversial as well as of amicable conversation. 

It is unhappily true, that upon this, as upon many other 
points at issue between us, there are mistakes on both sides, 
as to the real nature and character of the sacrifice of the 
Mass. Hence I have always felt it desirable when entering 
on this discussion, to obviate all mistakes and misapprehen- 
sions by letting the Church of Rome speak for herself in her 
four canons upon the subject. 

The Canons of the Council of Trent are as follows : 

12* 



274 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

" K any man shall say, tliat a true and proper sacrifice is 
not offered to God in the Mass, or that that which is ofiered, 
is only Christ offered to us to be eaten by us — let him be 
anathema." — Canon I. 

" If any man shall say that Christ did not constitute the 
apostles sacrificers (sacerdotes) by the words ' Do this in re- 
membrance of Me' — or that He did not ordain them, that 
they and other sacrificers (sacerdotes) might offer His body 
and blood — let him be anathema." — Canon H. 

" K any man shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only 
a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or that ifc is a mere 
commemoration of the sacrifice done on the cross, and that it 
is not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it is profitable only to 
the person who receives it, and that it ought not to be offered 
for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, 
and other necessities — let Him be anathema." — Canon HI. 

" If any man shall say that by the sacrifice of the Mass 
there is blasphemy done to the most holy sacrifice of Christ 
offered on the cross, or that there is any dishonor done to 
Him in the sacrifice of the Mass — let him be anathema." — 
Canon TV, 

In the following conversation, the subject was principally 
that involved in the second of these Canons ; namely, the 
priesthood. The other Canons embody the subject-matter of 
a subsequent conversation. 

While in conversation with a few Roman Catholics one day 
— the topic at the time being so non-theological a subject as 
the price of potatoes, and the best means of counteracting the 
schemes of some farmers and speculators who were combining 
to secure a high price for their stock — a combination often . 
made to the disadvantage and injury of the poor — the Roman * 
Catholic priest of the parish approached, accompanied by a 
number of his flock. He seemed excited, he held a stout 
hunting-whip in one hand and a small book in the other. 
The manner of his approach prepared me immediately for an I 
encounter of a hostile kind, though I was much perplexed as 
to the cause ; and I would gladly have retired, only that I 



i 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 2*75 

appi'ehended my doing so miglit be misconstrued. Hence I 
awaited his cominsf. 

o 

He waived his right hand in which he held his whip, and 
thus soon cleared an open space, keeping the people from 
pressing on him, and enabling all to see both him and myself. 
It seemed at the moment as if he was elate and confident — as 
if he felt he had some means of perfect triumph over me, and 
wished that all should be witnesses of his success. In his left 
hand he held open a volume which proved to be, not as I 
thought a missal, but the book of Common Prayer, and he 
held this toward me, pushing it almost into my very face. 

Now, he exclaimed, here is your own Book — your own 
Protestant Prayer Book. You stated to some of my flock — 
and here are some of them that heard you say it — that the 
holy sacrifice of the Mass was not a sacrifice at all — that there 
was no such thing as a sacrifice in the Catholic Church — that 
there is no such office as that of a priest in the Church of the 
Holy Jesus, blessed be his holy name — and that thus there is 
neither priest nor sacrifice in the holy Cathohc Church. Now 
to confute you, here is your own Protestant Prayer Book, 
where the service of your own Mass — I mean, he said, on 
observing a smile among the people, your own communion- 
service as you call it, is expressly called a sacrifice. The very 
words are " this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ;" I will 
read them, he added, in a tone of triumph, " O Lord and 
heavenly Father, w^e thy humble servants entirely desire thy 
fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of 
praise and thanksgiving." There, he exclaimed, in conscious 
triumph, they acknowledge it in their own Protestant Church, 
and deny it in the CathoHc Church ! 

Every eye was now turned on me for an answer, and yet I 
felt that this was not the place, nor was my opponent in the 
state of mind and tone of feeling suited to a discussion on 
rehgion. So I told him we were just then talking about the 
high price of potatoes, and speaking of the best way of coun- 
teracting the combination of the farmers and speculators. 
And, I added, in the mgst kindly way, that if he would help 



2*76 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

US in this matter, I would gladly talk with him on the other 
matter on some future occasion. 

My i^roposal only made matters worse. He replied that 
he would have nothing to do with me about potatoes or any 
thing else, until I answered him about the Mass ; — that I had 
said the Mass was not a sacrifice, and that there was no sacri- 
fice in the Church, v/hen in the Protestant Prayer Book itself 
the communion was expressly called a sacrifice. 

I saw he would have his way, and I saw likewise that the 
people, who take an intense interest and pleasure in a contro- 
versial rencounter, quite as much as in any other species of 
fighting, wished me to reply. 

I said that on the occasion alluded to I had stated that there 
was a sacrifice in the Church of Christ ; that there was one^ 
and only one, true propitiatory sacrifice that could take away 
sin or make atonement for sin — that that was the bleeding 
sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary, " the Lamb of 
God that taketh away the sin of the world ;" that that was 
the one sacrifice required by all the Protestant Churches ; and 
that we could recognize no other as a true, propitiatory, or 
atoning sacrifice. We feel and know — I added, with all the 
gentle courtesy I could show, and with all the kind and earn- 
est feelings I entertained — and one of your education and 
information knows, that in a large and figurative sense, every 
act of prayer, or of praise, or of charity, or of love is a spiritual 
sacrifice. The Holy Scriptures describe prayer as if it were 
" incense," and the lifting up of our hands in prayer and devo- 
tion as " an evening sacrifice." The Holy Scriptures describe 
the doing good to others, even with our worldly substance, as 
*' a sacrifice with which God is well pleased." The Holy 
Scriptures describe the devotion of ourselves to Him as " a 
living sacrifice" which is acceptable to God. The Holy Scrip- 
tures describe the Christian as ofiering ^'spiritual sacrifices 
acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ." All these earnest 
and devotional acts of the Christian life are " spiritual sacri- 
fices." And therefore we call our communion in the Lord'§ 
Supper with prayer and praise and thanksgiving *^ a sacrificQ 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 277 

of praise and thanksgiving." This is simply the meaning of 
the words in the Prayer Book ; and therefore, what I said a 
few evenings since, was, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was 
the only true, atoning sacrifice in the Church : and that ex- 
cepting this, there was not a true or propitiatory sacrifice in 
any Church. And that, therefore, the Mass of the Church of 
Rome was not a true and propitiatory sacrifice for sin as de- 
scribed in her creed — "I profess that in the Mass there is 
oflered to God a true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for the 
living and the dead." I appealed to our hearers as to whether 
this was not the purport of all I had stated ; and then I sug- 
gested that we should leave the subject for the present, and 
rather try something on which we were more likely to agree, 
instead of one on which we w^ere sure to differ ; suggesting 
that as I had answered his question, I hoped he would now 
consult with us about the combination to raise the price of 
potatoes on the poor. 

My appeal was useless. He looked at me with an appear- 
ance of conscious triumph, and added, in a tone which there 
was no mistaking — that not contented with saying to his flock 
that the holy Mass was not a sacrifice, I had also blasphemed 
the Catholic clergy, and said that he was no priest — that he, 
ay, that he was not a priest — for that there was no priest at 
all in the Church except Jesus Christ. He looked at me for a 
reply. 

I answered very slowly, but very impressively, that whoever 
had so reported me had in one particular, reported me truly. 
The Lord Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the Church. Any 
and every Christian, may, in a figurative way, or in the spirit- 
ual sense, be called a priest, and is so called in Scripture ; but 
as for a real, true priest, in the sense of a man to offer a true 
and atoning sacrifice for sin, in this sense, in which it is used 
among you — neither in the Church of Rome, nor in the Church 
of England, nor in the Church of Scotland, nor in any Roman 
or Greek or Protestant Church is there a priest but the Lord 
Jesus Christ himself. 

If I had spoken a thunderbolt or breathed a lightning flash, 



278 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

lie could not have been more excited. He exclaimed, that it 
was horrible blasphemy, and enough to drive a whole nation 
of Catholics, like Ireland, into rebellion and revolution ! And 
without another word, he rushed from the midst of us, and 
walked away as rapidly as possible. 

His sudden retreat had its natural effect on so peculiar and 
so excitable a people as our hearers. They were both disap- 
pointed and angered. I immediately expressed my regret, not 
indeed at his departure, but at his interruption of our previous 
consultation ; — told them that I would say no more at that 
moment on the subject of the priesthood, but that I would 
speak of it again at our cottage lecture in the evening ; — and 
so we resumed our consultation as to the best means of keep- 
ing down the price of potatoes. 

In the evening there was a large attendance of Roman Cath- 
olics mingled with the Protestants at the cottage where I was 
to deliver my lecture. I had expected this from the little af- 
fair of the morning. 

After our usual prayer and reading of a chapter from the 
Holy Scriptures, which on this occasion was the eighth of 
Hebrews, I proceeded, in my usual way, to explain the chap- 
ter generally in plain and simple language, and to make it as 
subsidiary as possible to the promotion of holiness of thought 
and feeling and life. I then dwelt more particularly on the 
priesthood of the Lord, as set forth in the opening verses. I 
laid it down, that in heaven and earth there was but one true, 
propitiatory, atoning sacrifice — Jesus Christ on the cross ; and 
but one true and sacrificing priest to ofier it — ^Jesus Christ in 
the heavens. I also laid it down broadly, that in " the Church 
militant here on earth" there was no priesthood whatever, ex- 
cept that spiritual priesthood which belongs to every Christian 
and believing man, woman and child ; — that there was no es- 
pecial priesthood in any special or select body of men apart 
from the whole number of " the faithful and elect people of 
God ;" — that there was no priestly caste, no sacerdotal caste, 
possessed of any peculiar or exclusive i^riesthood ; that the 
Lord Jesus Christ was the only true sacrificing priest, as He 



THE CIiraSTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 2^9 

was also the only true, atoning sacrifice for sin ; and that all 
His believing people were, in the words of St. Peter, " a holy 
priesthood," and, in the language of St. Paul, " a living sacri- 
fice." I went on to illustrate my position that our Lord Jesus 
Christ was the great High Priest of the Church, and the only 
one so designated in the Holy Scriptures. I illustrated this 
by verse one of the chapter before us, the eighth ; wherein I 
read — " Wherefore in all things it behooveth him to be made 
like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faith- 
ful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconcili- 
ation for the sins of the people." — Heb. ii. 17. " Wherefore, 
holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the 
Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." 
Heb. iii. 1. And again — "Seeing then that we have a great 
High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of 
God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an High 
Priest which can not be touched v/ith the feeling of our infirm- 
ities ; but was in all points tempted hke as we are, yet with- 
out sin." — Heb. iv. 14. And again: "Now of the things 
which we have spoken this is the sum : We have such an 
High Priest, who is set on the light hand of the throne of the 
Majesty in the heavens." — Heb. viii. 1. I said that these pass- 
ages might be easily multiplied to show Jesus Christ to be the 
one priest of His people. And then, as was my habit, I ask- 
ed whether there was any one who desired to ask any ques- 
tion for further information. 

One of our hearers in the little afiair of the morning, a 
zealous member of the Church of Rome, here remarked, that 
it had been made very plain, and no one could contradict it, 
by the Scriptures which had been read, that the Blessed Lord 
Jesus was the High Priest of the Church — that that was true 
Catholic doctrine, and the doctrine of the Catholic Church — 
that therefore neither he nor any Catholic could speak against 
it; but, he added shrewdly, that the fact of the Lord being 
the High Priest, did not hinder, but that there might be other 
priests. For example, he said, his holiness, the Pope is a 
bishop, but that does not prevent there being other bishops 



280 EVENINGS WITH THE KOMANISTS. 

besides, under him ; and so, tliough the Blessed Jesus be our 
great High Priest, it does not hinder, but that His clergy of 
His Church may be priests also under him. 

I saw that the point was well understood, and well received 
by many of his co-religionists present, and therefore I imme- 
diately thanked him for putting the question, and especially 
for the manner in which he put it, adding, that this was the 
true way of eliciting truth — that we all, whether Protestants 
or Romanists, were seeking the truth for the salvation of our 
souls, and were bound alike to search for it, and when found, 
to embrace it at every hazard. This sentimennt was warmly 
responded to. 

I then proceeded to answer him, by saying, that in the 
whole of the gospels and epistles, indeed in the whole New 
Testament, there is not a single instance — not one solitary in- 
stance — in which the ministers and clergy of the Church are 
designated as priests, or have that term applied to them, which 
is usually translated priests, and which means a priest who 
offers sacrifice — a sacrificing priest They are variously called 
ministers, and stewards, and pastors, and teachers, and dea- 
cons, and presbyters, and bishops, but in no instance whatever, 
are they designated as priests. This, I said, was a great eact 
on the face of Holy Scripture. I then read — " ISTow ye are 
the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God 
hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily proph- 
ets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, 
helps, governments, diversities of tongues." — 1 Cor. xii. 27, 
28. In all this, there is no mention of a priest or a priest- 
hood. I then read — "And he gave some, apostles; and 
some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the 
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." — Eph. iv. 11, 
12. There is no mention of a priest or priesthood in all this. 
I then read 1 Cor. iv. 1, then 1 Tim. iii. 1, then iii. 8, then 
Titus i. 5. I then remarked, that although they seem spe- 
cially designed to describe the various oflSces in the Christian 
ministry there is no mention of that of priest, or of a priest- 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 281 

hood — that this was a great fact on the face of Holy Scrip- 
ture; and that these things being so, the name of priest or 
priesthood, ought not to be applied to the ministry of the 
Church. I then added that we felt that having such an High 
Priest, all-willing to mediate — all-powerful to intercede — all- 
sufficient for our necessities, we stand in need of no other 
priest, we want no other, and to teach that we want another, 
is a practical impeachment of the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. 

The effect of this was considerable, especially as most of 
those present examined each text and handed the Bible from 
one to another, that all might see for themselves ; and it was 
observe^ that there was no material difference between the 
Protestant and the Roman Catholic translations. There are 
few statements which have generally a stronger or more start- 
ling effect upon Roman Catholics. They seem to feel that 
the claim of a sacrificing priesthood is the very life-blood of 
their system. And that if we deprive them of this, it is like 
letting out their life itself; and yet there is nothing more evi- 
dent than that in Holy Scripture there is no warrant what- 
ever for such a claim. There is a presbytery. There is not a 
priesthood.* 

It was after some delay, that the person, who had proposed 
the previous question, and to whom all his co-religionists 
looked for an ansv/er to my statement, said that he thought 
there were places in the Scriptures, where the clergy were 
called priests, and their holy office called a priesthood. He 
held his Bible open and read 1 Peter ii. 5. He then re- 
marked that the clergy were there called " a holy priesthood," 
and then read verse 9, observing that they were called " a 
royal priesthood," and then adding that in the Book of Rev- 
elations the clergy are called " kings and priests." He said 
with much modesty, that he was not much of a scholar, but 
that he had read that in all these places, the original word 
was exactly the one that meant a sacrificing priesthood, and 
that this was the doctrine of the Catholic Church — that Jesus 

* See note at the end of this conversation. 



282 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS, 

Christ was the High Priest, and that the clergy were the in- 
ferior pi-iests. 

" You are wrong there," exclaimed one of his own friends 
" for it is his holiness the Pope, the successor of the Blessed 
St. Peter, is the High Priest, as you said just now ; the clergy- 
are his inferior priests." 

This coming from a Romanist, caused no small sensation, 
which interrupted us for a few moments. It had the effect of 
drawing out a few more remarks and bringing into a strong 
light, something like the foreground of a picture, the difficulty 
of the Romanist explaining the high piiesthood of the Jews, 
The apostle plainly refers it to Christ. The Church of Rome 
as plainly refers it to the Pope. 

After this interruption had passed away, I said, that it 
was necessary I should reply to what he had stated when he 
cited the two places fi^om St. Peter and the third from the 
Revelation. I said that the reply was sufficiently ob^nous — 
that the title of priesthood and priest was given to all the be- 
lievers, all the members of the Church — not to the clergy 
alone, but to the laity also — not to any one sacerdotal caste 
of men, but to the whole body of the people of God ; to the 
men and to the women, to the old and to the young — to all 
the faithful alike. This, I went on to say, was apparent from 
the inscriptions of the Epistle. It is addressed, not to the 
clergy alone, but " to the strangers, scattered throughout 
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." It is thus 
addressed to them who were redeemed by Jesus Christ, verse 
18 — to them who were born again of the Spirit of God, and 
had purified their souls in obeymg the truth, verse 22 — to 
them who, coming as living stones, were built up into a Tem- 
ple unto God, and so built up on Jesus Christ as the true rock 
of their foundation, ii. 5. The Epistle is addressed to all such, 
whether clergy or people.' And, I continued, among these 
were both men and women, both husbands and wives, and 
that this was apparent from the third chapter, where both men 
and women are expressly mentioned, and again from the fifth 
chapter, where both clergy and people are mentioned. To 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 283 

tliese, I added — to all these alike, as the faithful people of 
God, the appellation of a holy priesthood, and " a royal priest- 
hood," belonged. They were all ahke, and I read the verse as 
I said it — they were all alike addressed by St. Peter, as a spir- 
itual house, a chosen people, a holy nation, a peculiar people, 
and a royal priesthood. It is in the same sense it is used in 
the Book of Revelation. In Christianity there is no sacerdotal 
class — no priestly caste. The "holy priesthood to offer up 
SPIRITUAL SACRIFICES acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ," is 
the office and inheritance of every believer alike, of men and 
women alike ; it belongs to no class and no caste ; and the 
humblest peasant man, and the lowliest peasant woman, if 
only they are the faithful children of Jesus Christ, are as much 
members of this priesthood, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
or the Bishop of Rome. 

Some minutes were here given by all present to the careful 
examination of the places cited in this first Epistle of Peter. 
There was much comparing of translations, and much con- 
versation on each point. The result was very satisfactory, as 
showing that several were convinced I had given the true in- 
terpretation of the Scriptures. 

I said to them in conclusion, that they ought to keep in 
mind, that there can be no sacrifice if there be no priest ; and 
that therefore, there can be no true sacrifice in the mass, as 
their is no true priest to sacrifice it. I added that on the 
next evening, I would open on that part of the subject. I 
then endeavored to improve the subject to all present, by en- 
larging on the comforts of having such a High Priest as 
Christ, to whom we could come in every time of need — to 
confess to Him our sins, to receive of Him forgiveness, and to 
ask of Him the grace to keep us in the future. 

I then dwelt on his sympathy for us in all our wants, neces- 
sities, sorrows, and temptations. I called their attention par- 
ticularly to the latter part of the fourth chapter of this epistle 
to the Hebrews, where it is said that all within us, all our 
inner nature was known to him — that he as God knew all 
that was in us, our infirmities, sorrows, trials and temptations 



284 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

— that he, as man, had so to speak, a personal and experi- 
mental acquaintance with all that we require, and that thus 
he was a High Priest who could have compassion on our in- 
firmities, and pity those who were astray, and sympathize with 
those that were under trial ; and finally that with such a High 
Priest, we may com.e with confidence, with all the loving con- 
fidence of loving children, to our Heavenly Father, Saviour 
and God, and we shall ever find grace and mercy in our time 
of need. " He is able also to save them to the uttermost that 
come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make inter- 
cession for them. For such an High Priest became us, who is 
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made 
higher than the heavens ; who iieedeth not daily, as those 
high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and 
then for the people's : for this he did once, when he offered 
up himself." — Hebrews, vii. 25-27. 

I have always found that the hearts of the people were 
touched by simple and clear statements as to the love of God, 
the work of Christ, and generally as to the great truths of the 
Gospel. Often after the heat of the controversy has passed 
away, these truths come like balm upon the heart, and many 
a fierce eye is moistened by the big tear, and many a bold 
face is shaded by the hand, and many a high head is seen to 
hang down, and feelings are touched and hearts are warmed, 
and the rough hand is outstretched with words of honest 
thankfulness. It certainly was so on the present occasion. 



Note. — [The H0I7 Scriptures frequently speak of " The Priests and 
Elders" of the Jews. The original words would have been more suit- 
ably translated — " The Sacrificers and Presbyters" of the Jews. The 
former, that is, the Priests or Sacrificers, ceased with the Jewish dis- 
pensation. Their Priesthood and Sacrifices were typical, and passed 
away when Jesus Christ, the true Priest and Sacrificer, was come ; 
and exercised the office and made the atonement. The latter, that is, 
the Elders or Presbyters, were continued, or, more correctly speaking, 
their name was continued in the Christian dispensation, and applied to 
the Christian Ministry. 

It is this word *' Presbyter," contracted into " Prester," and then into 
*' Priest," that is applied so often by us to our ministers. It is not in 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 285 

the sense of iTjfjevc, a Sacrificer, the word applied to the Jewish 
Priests ; but in the sense of UpeajSwepog, 3b Presbyter, that we so apply 
it. The Komanists use it in the former sense, claiming to be Sacri- 
ficers. The Protestants use it in the latter, claiming only to be Pres- 
byters.] 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 

The Love of Controversy among the Irish Peasantry — Curions Illustration— The 
Sacrifice of Christ as the only Atonement inconsistent with the Doctrine of the 
Mass— The Sacrifice of the Mass said to be identical with that of Christ upon the 
Cross — Said to be a Eepetition or Continuation of it — ^This examined or compared 
with Scripture— Such a Character deprives it of all its supposed Efiicacy — Argu- 
ment as to the Sufl'erings entailed upon Christ thus involved in the ^Nlass— Several 
Contradictions necessarily involved in this Doctrine— Passages of Scripture exam- 
ined in connection with this Subject. 

There is a love of religious discussion, or as some may call 
it, a love of controversy, very remarkable among the Irish 
peasantry. They will go any distance — ^undergo any fatigue — 
bear any inconvenience, if only they can hear a discussion 
on the points at issue between the Protestant and Romish 
Churches ; and whenever this is expected between persons sup- 
posed to be competent, there never will be wanted an ample 
assemblage of hearers. To such an extent does this feeling 
prevail, that a sermon or lecture on any points at issue, is sure 
to find a large number of eager, and attentive, and intelligent 
listeners. 

That much of this peculiar disposition belongs to the race 
is very probable. It seems like their restlessness and pug- 
nacity, a sort of national characteristic. It is very certain 
that these discussions are attended by a class of persons, 
thoughtless, giddy, heady, irreligious, who can hardly be sup- 
posed to listen from any deep interest in religion. And yet* 
they do listen with intense and rapt attention. 

And that much of all this love of discussion, springs from 
a deep w^ell-spring of religious feeling, seems a matter of cer- 
tainty. There is no other subject that commands the same 
influence. And as it is impossible to know the Irish peas- 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 287 

antry without seeing tliat the religious element forms a large 
portion of their nature, so no one can be familiar with these 
discussions, without observing that the thoughtful, earnest, 
and good men among them, are thoroughly absorbed in the 
argument developed in these discussions. 

And the effects of these discussions have been very striking, 
not only upon the rehgiously-disposed, but upon persons who 
had till then proved the enemies of all real religion. In my 
very large experience, I never knew a single instance of a 
Protestant having been led to Komanism by them, though I 
have known many who were awakened in such discussions to 
ihe reality of true religion. And on the other hand, I have 
known some hundreds of Roman Catholics, so influenced by 
them, as not only to embrace Protestantism, but to become 
earnest, devout, and holy Christians. 

So •intense is this desire to hear the subject discussed, that 
no opposition, no command, no threats from the priests, can 
prevent their attendance when there is a prospect of that at- 
tendance being unknown. Very frequently they so dread the 
malediction of the priest — they so dread a refusal to church 
their wives, or baptize their children, or to anoint the dying, 
or to marry the betrothed — they so dread a refusal to do these 
things for the families and relations of those who attend such 
discussions, that they fear to attend where there is a likelihood 
of their attendance becoming known to their priests ; while 
at the same time ifthey are convinced they can do so without 
their knowledge they will be sure to be present. 

A very ludicrous scene that occurred in a parish church in 
the South of Ireland, will illustrate this. A clergyman well- 
known for his eloquence, was announced to preach on some 
controverted doctrine. It was in a district almost exclusively 
Roman Catholic, and on the appointed evening the church 
was filled almost to suffocation by the members of the Church 
of Rome. As it was in the autumn of the year the shades of 
evening had descended and it was necessary to hght the church, 
and the preacher could look on a dense mass of earnest and 
attentive men, occupying every available space. Every seat 



288 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and the floor of every pew was occupied, with at least three 
times the number which they originally were calculated to 
accommodate ; while the aisle was one solid mass of men, 
standing with eager and fixed gaze upon the preacher, and 
hanging with rapt and absorbed attention upon every word 
that fell from his lips. All was still — it seemed as if the mass 
of people held their breath, lest their very breathings should 
disturb the voice of the preacher. Nothing else could be 
heard but his loving and burning words. Suddenly there was 
a cry at the entrance. There was a rush, and a rude demand 
for admission, by one endeavoring to force his way through 
the thick masses of the people standing in the aisle. The 
preacher paused. Every eye was turned toward the intruder. 
In a moment a cry ran through the church. "It is the 
priest — the priest ! " In the next moment there was a voice 
" Put out the light, and then he can't see us ! " In an instant 
the active men sprung on the tops of the pews, and every 
light was extinguished. A low-toned voice was heard through 
the church, " The priest can not see us now, M ," address- 
ing the preacher, " you can preach away now, and we can 
listen in the dark." A loud cheer even in so unsuitable a place 
followed this, and the preacher continued his address, while 
the whole assembly was wrapped in darkness, except from one 
small candle in the pulpit, to enable him to read the various 
references to the Scriptures. 

The evening following that on which I had spoken on the 
priesthood of the Church, there was a large attendance at my 
cottage lecture. I had concluded the usual prayers, and had 
commenced to read the Holy Scriptures, when a request was 
made and urged with great earnestness, that I would remove 
my seat to the doorway, and speak there, so that those who 
were standing without might have an opportunity of hearing 
as well as those within. During the time occupied in prayer, 
a large and dense crowd of persons gathered around the cot- 
tage, and as there was no space within, they proposed my 
taking my position at the doorway, so that they all might hear 
alike. A deep interest seemed to pervade all, and the 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 289 

desire to hear seemed universal. I gladly complied with the 
request. 

I read the liii. chapter of Isaiah. I gave a general exposi- 
tion of its subject matter, and dwelt on the divine compassion 
and love which it exhibited, and the obedience and gratitude 
it demanded of us in return. I then employed it to illustrate 
the subject of the evening. 

I said that our subject was sacrifice — the alone sacrifice of 
Jesus Christ — that if there was any one truth more essentially 
Christian than another, it was that the sacrifice of the Lord 
Jesus Christ upon the cross was the alone atoning or propitiat- 
ing sacrifice for sin. All other sacrifices, as that of bulls, and 
goats, and calves, and lambs, under the levitical law, were but 
types. This was the original and antitype of all. All other 
sacrifices were but the shadows. This was the substance of 
all. It was this alone satisfied the demands of the divine law, 
and' procured the remission and forgiveness of our sins. I 
added, that it was just here that the Protestant and Roman 
Churches were at issue. Protestants hold that there is no other 
sacrifice to atone or propitiate for sin. Romanists believe that 
v/hat they call the Mass is a propitiatory or atoning sacrifice 
for the sins of both the living and the dead. 

I proceeded to say that the language of the Holy Scriptures 
is full and explicit. It expressly states that all the preceding 
sacrifices were but shadows. It expressly states, that when 
the substance came, those shadows vanished away. The 
prophet describes Jesus Christ as the sacrificial victim, " who 
was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our 
iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and 
with his stripes we were healed : All we like sheep have gone 
astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the 
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." — Isaiah liii. 5. 
One apostle says, "Christ being an High Priest of good 
things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not 
made with hands, that is to say, not of this building ; neither 
by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He 
entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal 

13 



290 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, 
and tlie ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth 
to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood 
of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself with- 
out spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to 
serve the living God."— Heb. ix. 11-14. Another apostle 
says : " Ye know ye were not redeemed with coiTuptible things, 
as silver and gold, from your vain conversation reqeived by 
tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." — 1 
Peter i. 18, 19. This is the sacrifice that reconciles the sinner 
to his God. " It pleased the Father, that in Him should all 
fullness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of 
His Cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by 
Him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in 
Heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies 
in TOur mind by wicked works, vet now hath He reconciled in 
the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and 
unblamable and unreprovable in His sight." — Col. i. 19-22. 
This is the sacrifice that effects ,atonement, " God commend- 
eth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, 
Christ died for us ; much more then, being now justified by 
His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him : for if 
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by His life : and not only so, but we also joy in God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the 
atonement." — Rom. v. 8-12. This is the sacrifice that ac- 
Qom.'^W^h.e^ propitiation, " If any man sin, we have an advo- 
cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the 
sins of the whole world." — 1 John ii. 1, 2. Here is the lan- 
guage of Scripture, proclaiming, more distinctly than ever the 
thunders of Sinai proclaimed the law, the great and cardinal 
truth of the Gospel, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the 
Cross is the one sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins 
of man. 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 291 

Having sufficiently established tliis position, I proceeded to 
make it bear on the question before us. I proceeded to show 
tliat the sacrifice of Jesus Christ being once offered, remains 
forever the only sacrifice or offering for- sin. The language of 
the Holy Scriptures is as follows : " By one offering He 
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, whereof the 
Holy Ghost also is a witness to us ; for after that He had said 
before, Ihis is the covenant that I will make wdth them after 
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, 
and in their minds will I write them, and their sins and ini- 
quities will I remember no more. Now where remission of 
these is, there is no more offering for sinJ^^ — Heb. x. 14-18. 
There remaineth, then, no more offering for sin. The phrase 
is changed a few^ verses afterward, where He says, ''^ There re- 
maineth no more sacrifice for sinsy — Yerse 35. This language 
excludes all else but the death on the Cross from being a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice — a sacrifice for sin. And on language thus 
full and clear and explicit, I affirmed the doctrine, without 
which the future w^ould frown with the blackness of despair ; 
but with w^hich, the future brightens with the hope of glory — 
a doctrine which we read in all the records of the past — 
which we feel in all the experience of the present — which we 
trace in all the predictions of the future — a doctrine of which 
prophets sung, which apostles preached, for which confessors 
suffered, for which martyrs died — the doctrine that the offer- 
ing of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitia- 
tion, and satisfaction for all sins. And that there is no other 
than this — that its sufficiency excludes the necessity of any 
other, and that the language of Scripture absolutely excludes 
any other. 

I argued thus : If the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross 
was a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for our sins, then do 
we stand in need of none other. "He," says St. John, "is^ 
the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also 
for the sins of the whole' world." If this be true of the sac- 
rifice of the Cross, then there is no need of the sacrifice of the 
Mass. If the sacrifice of the Cross takes away all our sins, 



292 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

then there are no sins for the sacrifice of the Mass to take 
away. And for any Church to teach that the sacrifice of the 
Mass does propitiate and take away our sins as ejQScaciously as 
the sacrifice of the Cross — for any Church to teach that the 
sacrifice of the Mass is necessary, after the sacrifice of the 
Cross, for the propitiation of our sins — for any Church to teach 
tliis, is all one with saying the sacrifice of the Cross was not 
sufiScient ; it is all one with saying, that it wanted the asssist- 
ance of the Mass ; it is all one with placing the sacrifice of 
the Mass on a level with the sacrifice of the Cross ; it" is all 
one with setting up the Mass as a partner or a rival to the 
Cross in the work of propitiation. It is an impeachment of 
the honor of Christ ; it is an affront upon His sacrifice, it is 
an injury to His blood, it is a blasphemy against His Cross ; 
it is, in the language of the Article of the Church of Eng- 
land, " a blasphemous fable," and therefore " a dangerous deceit." 

When I came thus far, I paused, and in order to induce 
conversation, asked, whether I was fully comprehended, and 
whether there was any one who desired to ask a question. 

•My proposal was accepted by one who was in the habit of 
discussing such questions in the houses of the various inhabit- 
ants who were interested in these subjects. 

He expressed his entire assent to all that had been stated 
as to the fullness of the atonement, in the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ — that the doctrine of the Eoman Catholic Church was 
precisely the same as had been described by me from the Holy 
Scriptures — that there was no difference whatever between 
the Protestants and Eoman Catholics about it — that although 
there was no difiference about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, 
there was a difiference between the Churches on the Mass, or as 
Protestants have it, the Lord's Supper. The difference is this — 
the Roman Catholics look on the Mass as the very same as the 
sacrifice of Jesus Christ — as a repetition or continuation of it ; 
while Protestants think the Lord's Supper only the remembrance 
or memorial of that sacrifice. Now, he said, as we of the 
Church of Rome believe the sacrifice of the Mass to be one and 
the same — completely and identically the same as the sacrifice 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 293 

on the cross, having by transubstantiation the same Jesus 
Christ in body and spirit the sacrificial victim, the same body 
killed, and the same blood shed, in every thing the same, one 
and identical sacrifice ; we believe that, if that on the cross 
v/as a true and propitiatory and atoning sacrifice for sins, 
then that in the Mass must be a true and propitiatory and 
atonino- sacrifice for sins also. Whatever we believe of one, 
we beheve of the other, because they, by transubstantiation, 
are one and the same. We can see no difierence Avhatever 
between them ; if indeed the sacrifice of the Mass was another 
and distinct and different thing from the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ, then it would be an implying that that of Jesus Christ 
was not' sufficient, and required an additional sacrifice ; but 
this is not the case in the Church of Rome, the sacrifice of the 
Mass is not a diff'erent or additional sacrifice, but is one and 
the same identically with the sacrifice of the Cross. The cere- 
mony performed by our priest in our chapel, is the very same 
as the scene performed on Mount Calvary, and is in reality a 
repetition or ccgatinuation of it; its substance by transub- 
stantiation is the very same, and, therefore, its value for pro- 
pitiation or atonement for sin must be the very same. 

I asked, as he concluded, whether he meant to identify the 
sacrifice of the Mass with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ — to 
identify the ceremony performed by the modern Roman priests 
with the crucifixion perpetrated by the ancient Roman soldiers 
■ — to identify the services of the Church of Rome with the 
awful tragedy upon Calvary ? I asked this with the view of 
fixing the minds of all present upon the real nature of the 
doctrine. 

He replied in the affirmative, adding, that the Church be- 
lieved in transubstantiation, and that this made the sacrijice of 
the Mass the same as the sacrifice. on the cross, 

"I do not believe that," exclaimed one of the Roman 
Catholics, " for in the Mass there is no cross at all ; and even 
when the priest holds up the blessed Jesus in his hands, and 
elevates the Host for us to adore, there is no cross, except the 
sign of the cross which he makes with his hand ; there is no 



294 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

crucifixion — no thieves on either side, and above all, no blessed 
Virgin at his feet, no, nor any soldiers to mock and run the 
long spear into his side." This was spoken with all the 
seriousness of an earnest man. 

" Neither do I believe it," added another, amid the sen- 
sation created by this objection, " for the Blessed Mother of 
God was at the crucifixion, and so was the holy Magdalene ; 
it was then the sword pierced through and through the heart 
of the blessed Virgin herself, and there is nothing of all that 
in the Mass ; if the Mass were the same as the crucifixion, 
surely the blessed Virgin would be there." This was said 
with great energy of manner. 

" And sure she is there," said another Romanist, in a voice 
that savored of sly irony, " she is there — in the picture over 
the altar." 

A titter ran through the room, at the tone in which this 
was uttered, and I hastened to repress it ; such occasions are 
constantly occurring among a people whose love of a smart 
saying can not be stifled even by the gravest.and most serious 
subjects. They are intensely religious, but at the same time 
intensely humorous. 

I said that the statement made by our Roman Cathohc 
friend was of the gravest kind, and deserved our gravest 
examination. He had said that the sacrifice of the Mass by 
the priest is identically the same as the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ by the soldiers. This makes one as precious, as meri- 
torious, as influential, as acceptable with God in propitiation 
or atonement for sins as the other. Indeed, if they are one 
and the same, then if the sacrifice on the cross was able to 
save a lost and sinful w^orld, the same will be equally true of 
the sacrifice of the Mass — it will be able to save a lost and 
ruined world. 

I was here interrupted by a Protestant, who said, " If the 
sacrifice of the Cross has saved us by having made atonement 
for the sins of all them that believe, there can be no necessity 
for the sacrifice of the Mass to do it over again ; I understood 
that to be the argument first stated, that to offer the sacrifice 



k 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 295 

of the Mass in order to propitiate or atone for sins, was to im- 
ply the insujfficiency or inefficacy of the work done by the 
sacrifice of the cross which preceded it." 

I continued to say, that such was my argument, and that 
our friend had not answered it by saying that the sacrifice of 
the cross, and the sacrifice of the Mass were the same ; for it 
is clear, that if the sacrifice of the cross were suflScient, there 
can be no need of any repetition or continuation. How^ever, 
I added, we may as well confute it. 

Our first argument, to prove that the sacrifice of the Mass 
is not a repetition or continuation of the sacrifice of the Cross, 
is this : The Scriptures expressly state, that our Lord was to 
die once, and only once — that His death was never to be re- 
peated — and that by that one death, the whole propitiation or 
atonement was perfected. 

The Scriptures, which teach this, are many and explicit. 
We refer to the following : " Christ being raised from the 
dead, dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over 
Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin once, but in that 
He liveth, he liveth unto God." — Rom. vi. 9, 10. These 
words exclude all repetition of his death, for " He died unto 
sin o?2ce," and " He dieth no morer We then refer to the fol- 
lowing place : " Nor yet that He should ofier Himself often, 
as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with 
the blood of others ; for then must He often have suffered 
since the foundation of the world ; but now, once in the end 
of the world, hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacri- 
fice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, 
but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear 
the sins of many ; and unto them that look for Him shall He 
appear the second time, without sin unto salvatiou." — Heb. ix. 
25-28. It is here stated, that He was once off'ered as a sacri- 
fice for sin, and that He was not to be offered often ; which 
utterly excludes the possibility of His being offered in the sac- 
rifice of the Mass. We again refer to the following Scripture : 
" We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily minister- 



296 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ing and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can 
never take away sins ; but this man, after He had offered one 
sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God, 
from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made his foot- 
stool. For by one offering He hath perfected forever them 
that are sanctified." — Heb. x. 10-14. In these words there is 
still that remarkable reiteration of Christ being once offered, 
and that by that offering " onm for all," the whole work of 
propitiation has been perfected. It looks like the forecastings of 
Infinite Wisdom — it looks like the anticipations of Omnisci- 
ence — ^it looks as if the Holy Spirit had foreseen the evil and 
prepared the remedy. The inference is legitimate, that the 
death of Jesus Christ was not to be repeated — ^that His death 
was not be continued, for He arose from the dead — that the 
offering on the cross was not to be continued, for he was taken 
down from the cross ; and, therefore, that the sacrifice of the 
Mass is neither a repetition nor a continuation of the sacrifice 
of the Cross. 

I had scarcely concluded, when our opposing friend again 
broke in, saying, that the sacrifice of the Mass was not a re])eti- 
tion^ but a continuation of the sacrifice of the Cross. 

One of the Protestants present, a very aged and venerable- 
looking man, with long snow-white hair streaming upon his 
shoulders, one thoroughly versed in the Scriptures, and uni- 
versally respected for his personal piety, now stood up, and 
resting both his hands on his staff and leaning forward upon 
it, as with the weakness of many years, he said, it was very 
sad, that men, in speaking about God and their souls, should 
make so much of difference between a repetition and a contin- 
uation, or rather a continuation that was not a repetition. 
When men were arguing in that way it seldom led to any 
good results, either in the speakers or in the hearers. But, he 
said, that it appeared to his simple judgment, that as each 
mass is in itself a distinct and separate ceremony — as each 
mass has a beginning and an end — as each mass is performed 
at different hours and different days, and in different parishes 
and different lands, and by different priests, and for different 



[ 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 297 

congregations, so they can not bo a continuation, but a repeti- 
tion. It is a repetition of the same ceremony again and 
again. And when the priests demand money for masses for 
the repose of the souls of the dead, they always count the 
number of distinct and separate masses, as being distinct and 
separate repetitions of the same ceremony. They always 
count as one or ten or twenty masses, and not as one continu- 
ing mass. But in any light such repeated or continual sacri- 
fices can not be effectual to take away sin. Even if we were to 
suppose that the mass is a sacrifice offered upon the altars of 
Eome, year by year, and day by day, continually, such a sup- 
position — zealously as they contend for it — would be a death- 
blow to the propitiatory character assumed for it. It is the 
record of Revelation, that those " saciifices, which are offered 
year by year continually, can never make the comers thereunto 
IperfectP — Heb. x. 1. And again: "Every priest standeth 
daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, 
which can never take away sM'' — Heb. x. 11. If, then, the 
sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice, offered year by year 
continually — if it is a sacrifice ministered daily and offered 
oftentimes — if, in short, the sacrifice of the Mass is that which 
they would persuade us it is — namely, a repetition or continu- 
ation of the sacrifice of the Cross, yearly and daily offered — 
then, on their own showing — on their owm principle — the sac- 
rifice of the Mass can not be a propitiatory sacrifice ; it is a 
sacrifice that " can never take away sin." 

There was something in the manner and matter of this ad- 
dress, especially as coming from a very aged man, and one of 
their own class, that had a striking effect on all present. An 
argument well expressed and coming from one of their own 
class has always great weight among the peasantry. They 
seem to feel a kind of pride in it ; and though, perhaps, op- 
posed to their opinions, they yet feel pleased at its coming 
from one of themselves. And certainly, on the present occa- 
sion, there was no disposition to reply to it. In the silence 
that ensued, I resumed the subject. 

I stated that there was another argument on this point, and 

13* 



298 EVENINGS WITH THE HOMANISTS. 

reminded them that it had been stated that the sacrifice of 
the Mass was identically the same as the sacrifice of the Cross. 
On this I argued — if this be true, then our Lord Jesus Christ 
must suffer all the agonies of the sacrifice of the Cross every 
time He is offered in the sacrifice of the Mass. This argu- 
ment is founded on the words of the apostle, where he says 
that Christ was to be ofiered but once. " Nor yet that He 
should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into 
the holy place every year with the blood of others ; for then 
must He often have suffered since the foundation of the 
world ; but now once in the end of the world hath he ap- 
peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." It is 
here stated that Christ was to be offered but once, and that 
if He was offered often^ then He must have suffered often. 
As He could not be offered as a sacrifice for sin without suf- 
fering and death, so if He was often offered as a sacrifice for 
sin, He must often have been exposed to suffering and death. 
JN'ow the sufferings and agonies of Jesus on the cross, were 
beyond the tongue of men and angels to describe ; they were 
infinite as the sins of man for which He suffered, and the 
justice of God which He satisfied. And the words of the 
apostle imply, that, if the sacrifice of the cross was often of- 
fered^ then all these infinite sufferings must have been as often 
inflicted on Jesus Christ. I therefore argued that if the sac- 
rifice of the Mass be indeed a repetition or continuation of 
the sacrifice of the Cross, then must Jesus Christ be exposed 
to all the agonies and horrors of that death, every time the 
sacrifice of the Mass is offered : or in the words of the apostle, 
*' then He must often have suffered since the foundation of 
the world." 

I anticipated an answer to this. The members of the 
Church of Rome feel the argument keenly, as it implies a cru- 
elty and a wickedness in their priests and in themselves to re- 
peat or continue the sufferings of Christ ; and yet if the sacri- 
fice of the Mass be a repetition or a continuation of the sacri- 
fice of the Cross, it seems diflficult to avoid the accusation. I 
felt, therefore, that there would be some attempt at an answer, 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, 299 

and as I was aware of the answers usually attempted, I was 
prepared to reply. 

The intelligent person who had already spoke for the Church 
of Rome, at once replied, that there could be no sufferings in 
the sacrifice of the Mass, because that it was all mystical — all 
unreal, for that in the Mass Jesus Christ was not put to death 
really,, but only mystically — that the sacrificial knife was not 
real, but only mystical — that the shedding of His blood was not 
real but only mystical — that the sufferings were not real, but 
only mystical. jS'ow, he argued, the charge of cruelty and 
wickedness must fall to the ground, as the whole sacrifice is 
unreal and only mystical. There is neither cruelty nor wick- 
edness ; and as for the Holy Scripture where it is said, that if 
He be offered often, " then He must often have suffered," it is 
plain that St. Paul is speaking of real ofie rings, and therefore 
of real sufferings ; but this has nothing to do with the sacri- 
fice of the Mass, which is not real, but only mystical. 

" Why, man alive !" exclaimed one of his very zealous co- 
religionists, " sure that is as bad as the doctrine of the Prot- 
estants themselves !" 

The laugh created by this naive exclamation, led to several 
remarks, more or less irrelevant. I quieted them, by reminding 
them of the solemnity and importance of the subject, and said 
tha-t the exclamation as to the Protestantism of this doctrine, 
had considerable truth in it. The doctrine of the Church of 
Rome was, that the Mass was " a true and proper and propiti- 
atory sacrifice for sins," and the argument of our Roman Cath- 
olic friend was that it was an unreal and mystical sacrifice ! 
I confessed myself unable to reconcile the two statements 
— that by transubstantiation Jesus Christ is really and sub- 
stantially the victim, but that the kiUing and dying and suffer- 
ing are only unreal and mystical — that the priesthood who of- 
fers, is real and true, and that the offering and knife and cross, 
are only unreal and mystical — that when we allude to transub- 
stantiation, all is declared to be real and substantial^ and when 
we allude to the sacrifice of the Mass, all is explained as un- 
real and mystical ! I confessed that I could not understand 



300 EVENINGS "WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the inconsistency of all this, and felt that all must be taten lit- 
erally, and this would imply a literal presence, a literal victim, 
a literal death, and literal sufferings, or all should be taten fig- 
uratively, and then there would be a figurative presence, a fig- 
urative victim, a figurative death, and figurative sufferings, and 
this would annihilate transubstantiation. The truth is, I add- 
ed, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the doctrine of the 
Mass contradict each other, and they can not be reconciled. 

Our friend replied again, that so far from contradicting the 
sacrifice of the Mass, the doctrine of transubstantiation was its 
chief and real foundation. The bread and the wine are changed 
at the mysterious words of the priest, into the true and sub- 
stantial body and blood of the blessed Jesus, and this is the 
foundation of the Mass ; but, he added, he would not argue 
that point now, but vrould say, that in the sacrifice of the 
Mass there are no sufierings, for there is no shedding of blood ; 
this is the real point of the argument ; it was argued that if 
the saciifice of the Mass, was the same as the sacrifice of the 
Cross, then it would be a wickedness and cruelty to be putting 
the Blessed Saviour to a repetition or continuation of his suf- 
ferings. . " Xow, I have said," he continued, " that the sufier- 
ings in the Mass are not real sufiering^s but only mystical, and 
I now say further, that there can be no real sufferings where 
the blood is not shed; and in the sacrifice of 'the Mass, there 
is no shedding of blood. The Roman Catholic Church teaches 
that the sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice — that 
the Saviour is there unhloodily offered — that He is sacrificed 
in an unbloody manner. The Church has taught this over 
and over again, in the Council of Trent, and even in the chil- 
dren's catechi sms, and therefore, since the Mass is an unbloody 
sacrifice it follows that there are no sufferings. 

I felt now that the argument was in precisely that state in 
which I could deal with the question so as to tell upon the popu- 
lar mind, by giving that hind of answer that at once lays hold of 
the mind of the people ; — an answer, not subtle or refined, but 
plain, broad, strong and striking. I have so often observed its 
success on other occasions, that I felt confident of its effect now. 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 301 

I said that I would make three observations on what had 
been stated so well, so clearly, and so temperately. 

The first observation was, that the argument of our friend 
had been that the sacrifice of the Mass was the very same 
identically with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross ; 
but now we learn, that so far from being identically the same, 
they are widely different ; that on the Cross was a bloody sac- 
rifice, while that in the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice ; that 
on the cross was a suffering sacrifice, while that in the Mass 
is not a suffering sacrifice. The sacrifice on the Cross was a 
sacrifice unto a real death, while that in the Mass is a sacrifice 
with only a mystical death.! Thus having commenced with 
telling us that the sacrifice of the Mass was identically the 
same as the sacrifice of the Cross, we are now to learn that so 
far from being identically the same, they actually differ on 
those particulars that more than all else constitute the essence 
of a sacrifice — the shedding of blood, the endurance of suffer- 
ing, and the infliction of death ! All these, we know, were in 
the sacrifice of the Cross, and none of these, we are told, are in 
the sacrifice of the Mass ! And yet they tell us, that they are 
one and the same — identically the same ! 

The second remark which should be impressed on all is, that 
if the Mass be an unbloody sacrifice it can not be a propi- 
tiatory or atoning sacrifice for sin. Every one conversant with 
the doctrine of sacrifice, as revealed in the Scriptures, is aware 
that atonement and forgiveness are unalterably connected with 
the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial victim. It would 
occupy too much time to open this principle as fully as it de- 
serves, but it is sufficient for our present purpose, to rem. ark 
that Moses lays it down in the Old Testament, that " it is the 
blood that malceth oAonement for the soulT — Lev. x\di. 11 : and 
that St. Paul lays it down in the New Testament, that " with- 
out shedding of blood there is no remission^ — Heb. ix. 22. 
The doctrine of the Scriptures is, that there can be " no atone- 
ment," and that there can be " no remission of sins" unless 
there be the blood of sacrifice. And yet the advocates of 
Rome confess that the Mass is an " unbloody sacrifice ;" and 



S02 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

thus confess, that in it there can be no atonement or " remis- 
sion of sins !" Thej had told us, that the Mass was a propi- 
tiatory — an expiatory — an atoning sacrifice ; and now, as if all 
this had faded from their memory — they labor with untiring 
assiduity to persuade us, it is only " an unbloody sacrifice." 
And therefore, on their own showing, it is a sacrifice without 
propitiation, expiation, or atonement. 

But the third and last observation I would mate on the 
statement that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, is, that it es- 
tablishes a plain inconsistency with the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation. It brings these two doctrines, the Mass and Tran- 
substantiation, two chief and cardinal doctrines of the Church 
of Rome, into broad and unmistakable opposition. Accord- 
ing to the doctrine of the Mass, it is an unbloody sacrifice. In 
order to escape the charge of cruelty and wickedness in con- 
tinuing or repeating the sufierings of the Cross, they say, that 
the sacrifice of the Mass is unbloody. It is so described in 
the Council of Trent : it is so described in the children's 
catechisms, it has been so- described by our friend here this 
evening. It is an unbloody sacrifice : there is no blood. But 
we are also told of transubstantiation that the bread and wine 
are transubstantiated into the very, true, substantial body and 
blood of Jesus Christ ; and that it is thus that they have Him 
as the sacrificial victim, whole and entire, on their altars. 
They have no longer bread and wine. They have only the 
body and the blood. If then all is blood, and nothing but 
blood : if all the wine be turned, into blood, and nothing re- 
mains but blood, how can they say that in the Mass there is 
no blood — that it is an unbloody sacrifice ? When they are 
defending transubstantiation, all is bloody ; when they are de- 
fending the sacrifice of the Mass, all is unbloody ! 

This acted like magic upon my hearers. They gave the 
most unmistakable evidence of their feeling ; and in a mo- 
ment, when I paused to let it have its full efiect, and to give 
any one an opportunity for reply, the whole number, both of 
Protestants and Romanists, were speaking in low whispers. 
It was soon apparent that there was a deep impression made 



i 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 303 

upon all, and that there would be no further reply. I there- 
fore made some general remarks with the view of impressing 
as far as I could, all present with a deep sense of the love of 
Him who left the heavens for us, and bled and suffered 
and died a sacrifice for our sins ; and of the necessity for 
all of us to lay aside all other ground of hope — all self- 
dependence or self-righteousness — all dependence on rites or 
ceremonies, and to rest in faith and hope and love upon that 
which would be found in the great day to be th^ only atone- 
ment for sin. 

Note. — There are certain texts sometimes cited by Roman Catholics 
to justify their doctrine, that the mass is " a true, proper, propitiatory, 
and atoning sacrifice for sin." 

I. One of these places is Acts xiii. 2, where it is said of some of 
the Christian prophets and teachers [there is no mention of either 
bishops or priests], that they '' ministered to the Lord." On this they 
argue that the word ''ministered" in the original means "sacrificed,' 
or " offered sacrifice," and that these words imply that these Christians 
offered the sacrifice of the Mass. The answer to this is — 

That the original word means nothing of the kind, but simply any 
pubhc or ofiScial service, whether civil or religious. Accordingly it is 
apphed in Kom. xiii. 6, to the civil magistrate collecting the taxes or 
tribute. Again, it is apphed in 2 Cor. ix. 12, to the Christian distrib- 
uting the money collected for their poorer brethren. Again, it is ap- 
plied in Heb. i. 14 to the angels sent to minister to the heirs of sal- 
vation. Again, in Rom. xv. 27, it is applied to those who were bound 
in Christian fellowship, ''to minister in carnal things," that is, in 
money, to those who had brought to them the spiritual blessings of the 
Gospel. 

That according to those places, the word means any pubhc or pri- 
vate service ; and therefore, in the place cited, it merely means that 
the Christian prophets and teachers were assembled together in some 
rehgious service. The place makes no allusion whatever to sacrifice, 
and certainly not to the sacrifice of the Mass. 

But as they could not find the sacrifice of the Mass already in tho 
Holy Scriptures, the translators of the French Bible, called *' the Bor- 
deaux Bible," were resolved to place it there ; and by an outrageous 
falsification, which was nothing less than sacrilege, they translated 
this place, " As they offered unto the Lord the sacrifice of the mass, 
and fasted," etc. They thus inserted the words, " the sacrifice of the 
Mass," so as to deceive the people into the befief that they had the 



304 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

authority of Holy Scripture for their doctrine ! They were afraid to 
do this in a Bible-reading land like England. 

II. They often refer to G-en. xlv. 18, where Melchizedek is described 
as meeting Abraham and his people returning from the rescue of Lot. 
The narrative states that ]Melchizedek '* brought forth bread and wine; 
and he was a priest of the Most High God, and blessed Abraham." 
On these words they argue, that Melchizedek, because he was a priest, 
brought forth bread and wine to offer in sacrifice — -just like the sacri- 
fice of the Mass. The answer to this which I have found generally 
effective, is — • 

That Melchizedek brought this bread and wine to welcome and re- 
fresh Abraham and his people, after their night expedition. And that 
Josephus, the Jewish historian, narrates the circumstance in that way. 
And certainly there is in the narrative nothing whatever to suggest the 
idea of sacrifices. His Priesthood is mentioned to account for his 
blessing Abraham, and not on account of any sacrifice of bread and 
wine. But in the Romish translation of the place, they have most im- 
properly departed from the original Hebrew, and rendered the words 
— '• And he was a Priest," by "/or he was a Priest," 

That even supposing there was a sacrifice of bread and wine, and 
that this sacrifice was. as they assert, a type of the sacrifice of the 
Mass ; it would then prove, that the mass was a sacrifice of merely 
Iread and vjine. Transubstantiation would be necessarily overthrown ; 
and the Mass prove, after all, no more than mere hread and wine ! 

III. They refer frequently to MaL i. 11, where in allusion to the 
times of the Messiah — to Christian times, it is foretold that among the 
Gentiles " incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering." 
On this they argue that it implies, that there was to be "a pure of- 
fering,"' or oblation among the Gentiles; and that this must allude to 
the ofiering of the sacrifice of the Mass. The answer to this is — 

That incense under the law was a type of prayer ; and David there- 
fore says — " Let my prayer be set before thee as incense ;" and that a 
pure offering was the type of the offering of Jesus Christ, for the sal- 
vation of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. And thus the prophecy is 
merely describing the character of our Gentile times, that among them, 
*' from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same ;" — that is, 
from East to West through the world, the Gentiles would yet be pre- 
senting their prayers to the true God, and rest for the true atonement 
of their sins upon the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. 

That in strict fulfillment of all this prediction, the nations that have 
been converted to Christianity in the East and in the West, are now, 
in the language of the Apostle, Rom. xii. 1 — "presenting their bodies 
a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." There is not here a 
word about the ^fp9c 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 

A Conversation on our Lord's Words in this Chapter — The Eoroish Interpretation 
— The Protestant Explanation — The Allusion to the Ascension, and the Argument 
derived from it — The Ancient Fathers not unanimous on it, according to the 
Council of Trent — The Opinions ofEusebius, Tertullian, Augustine, Origen, as to 
the Meaning of this Discourse — Augustine's Explanation of the Allusion to the 
Ascension — Evidence against the Literal Interpretation — The Argument con- 
nected with the coming down from Heaven — Difficulties to the Church of Eome 
herself, arising from her own Interpretation. 

It is seldom that a female makes an effective controversial- 
ist. The eager and impulsive tenSepcy of her nature — the 
instinct, the passion, and the feeling that belongs to her, are 
too intense for the war of argument ; and she is sure to lay 
herself open to the wary, watchful, and subtle opponent. 

In a considerable town, in the west of Ireland, resided a 
female, whose controversial reputation, in that locality, was of 
the first magnitude. She was the proprietor of the principal 
establishment of a mercantile kind in the town, and thus was 
possessed of wealth and position which gave to her a certain 
amount of local influence ; and this in some sort gave strength 
to her controversial lore. She was a member of the Church 
of Rome, a kind, charitable, good woman, pious and religious 
according to her principles, and esteemed and respected, 
because she deserved it, in every relation of life. Her one 
failing — and yet it was that which created her fame — was a 
love of controversy. It was impossible to buy a ribbon, or to 
purchase a cap, without her finding some opportunity of say- 
ing a word for the Roman Church ; and she could not try on 
a shawl or dispose of a vail without giving some wound to the 
Protestant religion. Intolerable as this would ordinarily be, 



306 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

yet persons learned to bear with it, from sincere respect for 
her general character. They looked upon it as an oddity or 
peculiarity to be pardoned. 

I had been on a visit with some friends in the country, 
about six or seven miles from the town. And as some of them 
were obliged to go there one day to make some purchases, 
they proposed I should accompany them. They told me 
beforehand that this female controversialist knew me by name, 
and had expressed a wish to see me, and that I must, there- 
fore, be prepared for an attack on her part. 

We met ; purchases were made, and, as not unusual, some 
purchases were exchanged for others. By some means or 
other she managed to make some incidental allusion to the 
change in transubstantiation. It is impossible now to say 
how precisely the allusion arose, but she managed to drag in 
the subject. Perhaps the lady whom I had accompanied, 
and at whose house I was staying, was mischievous, but cer- 
tainly she noticed the allusion with, as it seemed to me, the 
purpose of involving iri^ ; at all events, one thing led to an- 
other, till our female controversialist expressed her fear that I 
did not beheve in Transubstantiation. 

I said very gently, and kindly, and courteously, that I was 
unable to believe it ; — that whether it was some skeptical ten- 
dencies in my mind, or some mental malformation that inca- 
pacitcited me from receinng that dogma ; — that whether it 
was a defect in the evidence for it, or a defect in myself and 
my prejudices, it was very certain I had never been able to 
see it in the same hght that it appeared to her. 

She spoke in the same spirit, and said, that every object we 
look at varies very much according to the light in which we 
view it, or the point from which we see it. This silk, she said, 
taking up a piece of shot silk, if seen in one light is a beautiful 
brown, and seen in another, is a lovely lilac. 

This illustration, I said, seemed to imply that possibly we 
might both be right, and that our difference was only a differ- 
ence of position ! And then, I added expressively, there could 
be no reason for excluding either party from the privileges 



J 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 307 

and graces — from the forgiveness and salvation of the Cliurcli 
of God ! On this principle exclusive salvation is a folly and a 
crime. 

She saw at a glance the point of my words, and felt the 
mistake she had made ; but said, with great readiness, that 
her allusion applied to different views of the same truths, not 
to a faithful reception and an unbelieving rejection of one ; — 
to different views of, for example, the real presence, not to a 
positive rejection of it altogether. She then said, gently and 
suggestively, that she supposed I rejected altogether the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation. 

I bowed assent, adding, that I could not believe it. 

She smiled gently, and expressed surprise it should be so, 
as Protestants so frequently spoke of deriving every thing from 
the Holy Scriptures ; and our Lord said expressly — " Verily, 
verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso 
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and 
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat in- 
deed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my 
flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." 
— John vi. 53-56. There is Scripture at all events to justify 
our behef in transubstantiation. 

I replied, by reminding her that the silk that seemed brown 
at one moment appeared lilac at another. And that these 
words when taken alone and without explanation might seem 
to have one sense, but when viewed in connection with our 
Lord's explanation immediately after, they appeared in a to- 
tally different light. Now what was our Lord's explanation ? 
His disciples evidently misunderstood Him, and murmured at 
His words, which, taken literally, seemed harsh and unnatural 
and revolting ; for the idea of their eating him — the idea of 
taking blood, which was expressly forbidden by their law — the 
idea of their becoming cannibals, was unnatural and revolting 
to their feelings. He therefore at once corrected them, say- 
ing they should have seen that his words were spiritual and 
living words — " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh 



308 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

profitetli nothing ; the words that I speak unto yon, they are 
spirit, and they are Hfe." — Verse 63. Our Lord thus corrects 
their error in having understood Him in a Hteral or fleshly 
sense. He tells them that such a sense was unprofitable, and 
that His words should be understood in a spiritual and living 
sense, in other words, in a figurative sense. 

She listened to this with a smile of intense satisfaction — a 
smile that betrayed her acquaintance with it before, and her 
own feeling of pleasure in the opportunity now afforded her 
of answering it. She said, in a tone of great triumph, with a 
sort of inward laugh, that such could not have been the mean- 
ing of our Lord, for that He shows He intended to imply a 
miracle— a wonderful miracle — a miracle greater than even 
His ascension ; for He adds, when the disciples murmured — 
" Doth this offend you ? What ! and if ye shall see the Son 
of man ascend up where He was before?" — Verse 61. Thus 
implying that they ought not to murmur at the miracle of 
Transubstantiation— at their eating thereby His flesh and 
blood — inasmuch as they were soon destined to witness the 
wonderful miracle of His ascension to Heaven. When they 
should see a miracle like that, they would no longer doubt 
the miracle of Transubstantiation. 

She seemed delighted with this argument, which certainly 
was sufiSciently ingenious. But the expression of her face en- 
tirely changed when I said as before, that as the silk looked 
brown in one aspect and lilac in another, so there was a to- 
tally different view of this passage, namely, the view taken of 
it by all the fathers and saints of the primitive Church. 

She eagerly interrupted me, and asked what it was. 

I replied, that I was going to describe it ; and that as her 
Church professed such profound reverence for the fathers and 
saints of primitive times, the St. Augustines and St. Athan- 
asiuses, so I was sure she would bow to their interpretation. 
They state, that when the disciples murmured at His words, 
He asked them, " Doth this offend you ?" that is, does this lan- 
guage lead you to err and fall — does this language lead you 
astray ? and then he added, " What ! ye shall see the Son of 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 309 

man ascend up where He was before." When you see Him 
ascend into Heaven^ you may be sure you can not eat or drink 
Him on earth — you shall see Him ascend into Heaven, and 
therefore you can never think of eating literally His flesh, or 
drinking literally His blood. He will be enthroned in the 
heaven of heavens, and how can you so foolishly think that I 
meant you were to eat me on earth ? And thus our Lord's 
words, alluding: to His ascension, are an aro-ument of his own 
against the notion of literally eating and drinking Him ; and 
having thus argued against this, He adds, that assuredly they 
ought to have seen that His words were not to be understood 
in a fleshly sense, but in a spiritual sense, " It is the Spirit that 
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I 
speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." Now, I 
added, that this was the interpretation which the old fathers 
and saints of the primitive Church took t)f this allusion to the 
Ascension, and that I must confess my agreement with 
them. 

She listened to this with great attention ; it was evidently 
new to her; she was wholly unprepared with an answer. 
And my statement, that it was the opinion of the primitive 
Church, had its weight with her ; she mused on it for some 
moments, while my friend and myself exchanged amused 
glances at her perplexity. She then said very gently, that she 
had never heard that view of the allusion to the Ascension 
before, and that she w^as not then prepared to answer it, but 
that she would do so when she saw me again, which she 
hoped would be very soon. 

V/e parted for the time. 

I saw her again a few days afterward, and I brought with 
me a small manuscript-book in which I had copied a variety 
of passages I had met with in the writers of the primitive 
Church. This little volume was to me a very constant and 
useful companion for many years, owing to the strong feeling 
of reverence in which any thing from the fathers and saints of 
the primitive times, is regarded among the Roman Catholics. 
As soon as I saw my fair antagonist, I reminded her of my ar- 



310 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

gument in our preceding conversation — that I had argued that 
the Fords of our Lord, as to eating his flesh and drinking his 
blood, were to be interpreted figuratively, and also that his al- 
lusion to the ascension into heaven, was designed by him as an 
argument against the literal interpretation, a divine argument 
of our Lord himself against the doctrine of Transuhstantiation. 

She replied that she had a perfect recollection of what had 
f)assed, and she added, with a very arch and skeptical expres- 
sion, that she recollected how I had said that the fathers and 
saints of the primitive Church agreed with me. 

I said she was perfectly correct, and that I had brought with 
me for her, the opinions to which I referred. I then read 
from Eusehius. 

" Verily, verily, I say unto you, whoso eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. When He 
was mystically saying these and similar things, some of his 
disciples said to him, ' This is a hard saying, who can hear it V 
And in reply to them, our Saviour says, ' Doth this ofiend 
you ? What, and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up 
where he was before. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the 
flesh profiteth nothing, the word that I speak unto you, they 
are spirit and they are life.' By these words he designed to 
teach them that what they had heard of his flesh and blood 
was to be understood in a spiritual sense, as if he had said, Do 
not think that I am speaking of the flesh with which I am 
surrounded, as if you ought to eat that, nor imagine that you 
are to drink of my sensible and corporal blood, but you must 
clearly understand that the words which I si>eak unto you are 
spirit and life ; so that his words and discourses are flesh and 
blood, and if a man eat of them, as feeding on celestial food, 
he shall be a partaker of hfe eternal. Therefore, says He, let 
not this offend you, which I have said about eating my flesh 
and drinking my blood, nor be troubled at the superficial bear- 
ing of what I said of meat and drink ; for these, if under- 
stood carnally, will be unprofitable, for it is the Spirit that 
quickeneth those who understand them spiritually, ''^ B. 3. Eccl. 
Theol. 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 311 

I remarked simply, that there was no mistaking the mean- 
ing of this father, and I then read from TertidUan, 

" They thought his discourses were harsh and intolerable, 
as if he had determined that they were truly to eat his flesh ; 
he premises, in order to describe the state of salvation in the 
spirit : * it is the Spirit that quickeneth,' and then he adds, 
' the flesh profiteth nothing,' that is, for quickening, ' the words 
which T speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,' as 
he had already said — ' Whoso heareth my w^ords and believ- 
eth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not 
come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life,' 
thereby declaring his discourses to be that which quickeneth, 
for his discourses are spirit and life. He declares the same 
discourse to be also his flesh, for his discourse was made his 
flesh, and for that reason it is to be sought and eaten by hear- 
ing, and chewed by the understanding, and digested by faith ; 
for a little before, he had pronounced his flesh to be heavenly 
meat, urging still under the figures of necessary food ^ the re- 
membrance of their fathers." De Resur. 

I only observed to her on this that it showed how those 
writers interpreted this subject figuratively. I then read from 
Athanasius,"^^ 

" When our Lord spake of the eating of his body, and when 
he saw that many w^ere offended, he forthwith added, ' Does 
this offend you ? What, and if ye shall see the Son of man 
ascend up where he was before. It is the spirit that quick- 
eneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto 
you, they are spirit and they are life.' Both these things, the 
flesh and the spirit, he said respecting himself; and he dis- 
tinguishes the spirit from the flesh, in order to teach men that 
his words were not carnal hut spiritual; for to how many 
persons, think you, could his body have been literally food, 
so as to be food for the whole world ? In order to turn away 
their minds from carnal thoughts, and that they might learn 

* The originals of this place from Athanasius, as also of the other 
fethers here cited, will be found in Usher's reply to Malone. 



312 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that the fiesh that he would give them was heavenly and spi- 
ritual food, he on this account mentioned the ascent of the 
Son of man to heaven." 

Such was the interpretation of this celebrated saint, and I 
then read as follows, from Augustine : 

" Christ taught his disciples and said to them : ' It is the 
spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words 
which I spake unto you, they are spirit and they are life,' as 
if He had said — understand spiritually what I have spoken. 
You are not about to eat this identical body which you see, 
nor to drink this identical blood, which they who crucify me 
will pour out. On the contrary, I have commanded a certain 
sacrament unto you, which shall vivify you if spiritually un- 
derstood ; for though it must be celebrated visibly, yet it must 
be understood invisibly." In Psa. 98. 

This was sufficient as to the opinion of this greatest of all 
the fathers. I then read from Origen, 

" You must know that they are figures, which are written 
in the sacred volume, and therefore as spiritual and not as 
carnal persons, examine and understand what is said ; for if 
you understand them carnally they will be injurious to you, 
and will not nourish you. There is a letter that killeth him 
who does not interpret in a spiritual sense what is said, for if 
you follow according to the letter this saying, ' Unless ye eat 
my flesh and drink my blood,' it is a letter that hillethr — In 
Levit.'hom. 7. 

Having read these several extracts, I remarked that they 
showed very clearly that these fathei^ and saints of the primi- 
tive Church adopted the figurative and not the literal inter- 
pretation of this discourse of our Lord ; that they adopted the 
interpretation which Protestants give, and rejected that which 
Romanists give, to this remarkable chapter. 

She merely said, in reply to this, that she believed that in 
the writings of these very fathers and saints there were pass- 
ages which gave the opposite interpretation, agreeing alto- 
gether with the Church of Rome ; that she had seen such 
passages often quoted in books ; but that, of course, she could 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST, JOHK. 313 

not be expected to be able to argue on that point. She was 
sure, however, that her priest could easily satisfy me on the 
subject. 

I replied that I certainly could not expect her to be familiar 
with writers whose works were all either Greek or Latin ; but 
that, if these writers wrote those passages which I had cited, 
and also wrote those passages directly opposite, to which she 
alluded, it only proved that they were very inconsistent men ; 
— that these fathers and saints, as they were called, were very 
inconsistent Christians thus to write on both sides ; and there- 
fore were scarcely fit persons to govern us in our interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures. I added pleasantly, that her creed 
contained a clause that she would " never interpret Scripture 
otherwise than according to the unanimous interpretations of 
the ancient fathers ;" and that the Council of Trent had ex- 
pressly acknowledged that, as to the purport of this sixth 
chapter of St. John, the ancient fathers are not unanimous ! 

She took this in very good part, smiling pleasantly at it ; so 
I felt that I could go a step further. I reminded her that in 
our former conversation she had argued that our Lord's allu- 
sion to His ascension was in order to remove the doubts of 
His hearers— -that when they should witness the wonder of 
His ascension they need no longer doubt the wonder of tran- 
substantiation. She assented to this ; and I then reminded 
her that I had argued on the other hand, that He had alluded 
to his ascension in order to show them that they ought not 
to understand his words in a literal sense ; for that when He 
would ascend to heaven and sit enthroned there, and be their 
Priest and Advocate and Mediator, then they could not have 
Him bodily on earth, to be literally and substantially eating 
his body and drinking his blood. This, I said, was my argu- 
ment and explanation of this allusion. And now I added that 
Saint Augustine was my authority for this argument. He 
says : 

"Our Lord answers — *Doth this offend you?' I said I 
would give you my Flesh to eat, and my Blood to drink ; does 
it offend you ? * What and if you shall see the Son of Man 

14 



314 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ascend up where He was before V What is the meaning of 
this ? By this He explains what they knew not, and lays open 
the reason of their being offended ; for they imagined that 
He would give to them His body : and therefore He said He 
would ascend to heaven entire. When you shall see the Son 
of Man ascend into heaven^ then you will see certainly that 
He gives not his body in the way you imagine, ' It is the 
spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words 
that I spake unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' 
What is the meaning of this, ' they are spirit and they are 
life V That they are to be understood spiritually. Dost thou 
understand them spiritually^ then they are spirit and life. Dost 
thou understand them carnally^ then, though they are spirit 
and life, yet they are not so to thee," in Joh, Tract 27. 

Again, St. Augustine says : 

" Some of his disciples, yet not all, but very many, were 
offended, saying one to another, ' This is a hard saying ; who 
can hear it V Now, when our Lord perceived this, and heard 
their murmurings and thoughts, He answers them, in order 
that they might understand that He had heard them, and 
that they might cease from such thoughts ; but what was his 
answer ? * Doth this offend you ? what and if ye shall see 
the Son of Man ascend up where He was before V Now, 
what does He mean by these words — ' Doth this ofiend you V 
Do you imagine that I shall maJce parts of this my body which 
you see, and that I shall take my inembers to pieces, to give 
them to you ? ' What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man 
ascend up where He was before V It is certain, that He who 
has ascended whole, can not be eaten^ — De Yeib. Apos. 
Sermo 2. 

On reading these, which certainly surprised my antagonist, 
I said, that there could be^ no doubt as to the meaning of this 
celebrated father and saint ; he explained the allusion to the 
ascension, as I had done, and thus this argument against tran- 
substantiation is an argument invented by our Lord himself, 
and urged by him against transubstantiation. It is not an 
inference drawn from his words, but is an argument divinely 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 316 

formed^ and divinely urged by our Lord himself ; and it sim- 
ply is, that instead of interpreting liis words of eating his flesh, 
and drinking his blood in a literal sense, they should see that 
the thing was an impossibility, for as He was to ascend bodily 
to heaven^ so they could not have him to eat bodily upon 
earth,^ 

I must do my fair opponent the justice to say, that she 
bore all this with great patience, she listened with the closest 
attention — showed she fully saw and comprehended my mean- 
ing — made some just and natural comments, but made no 
effort to weaken the force of my argmiient. She was evi- 
dently unprepared for such a mass of evidence, and very 
frankly acknowledged her inability to answer it, further than 
by saying that there w^ere other reasons operating on her 
mind, which forced her to an opposite interpretation of our 
Lord's discourse ; she said that she had read much, and argued 
much on it, and her opinion was fully formed, and could not 
be easily changed, and certainly not by any thing I had of- 
fered, though she admitted it w^as very new and very interest- 
ing ; but, she added gently and feelingly, that she often felt 
that she was right, when she could not prove it. 

The earnestness, simplicity, and sincerity of her manner, 
in saying this, could not be lost upon me : I fully appreciated 
it, and in a very few minutes we were established mutually in 
each other's confidence ; differing wddely as the poles in our 
views, we yet felt that we could speak fully and frankly to each 
other, and I resolved to avail myself of it ; so after a short 
conversation on the importance of tme religiousness, and of 
nobly and faithfully living on Christ, and living for Christ, I 
took occasion to revert to our original subject, and said that I 
apprehended she had not considered the discourse of our Lord 
as a whole, and had perhaps only seen the use that had been 



* It will be seen that this argument is a full justification of the 
note or rubric appended to the end of the Communion Service in the 
Common Prayer. Christ's human body being hterally in heaven, can 
not be literally on earth. By his Spirit he is every where. 



316 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

made of the particular place she had quoted, about eating the 
flesh and drinking the blood. 

She said at once that she was intimately acquainted with 
the whole chapter, but habitually took a totally different view 
of it from me. 

I asked her whether she believed the flesh and blood of 
His body, which were supposed to be eaten and drank, were 
the body that was born of the Virgin Mary. I added that I 
took for granted that she did so believe, because the catechism 
of the Council of Trent said it was " the real body of Christ, 
the same that was horn of the Virgin^ and sits at the right 
hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in the sacrament.^' 
chap. iv. ques. 26. 

She answered, that of course she believed this, because he 
had no other but that which was the substance of his mother, 
born in the world. His divine nature. His Godhead was from 
heaven ; but His human nature. His manhood was from earth ; 
His flesh and blood which belonged to His manhood, to His 
human body, was of course born of the blessed Virgin. Why, 
she asked, inquiringly, should you ask such a question ? 

I could not but enjoy her simplicity, and if we were not 
established in mutual confidence, I could hardly have had it in 
my heart to go on with my argument ; but I felt she would 
receive it kindly from me. I said, that her answer, so clear 
and decisive to my simple question, cut up her interpretation 
of this discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John by the very 
roots, for our Lord is speaking throughout it, not of that which 
He received from the Virgin Mary — not of that which came 
from earth or belonged to earth, but only of that which came 
down from heaven. He says, " My Father giveth you the 
true bread from heaven^ for the bread of God is He which 
Cometh down from heaven^'' verse 33. This could not be the 
body of flesh and blood He received from the Virgin Mary. 
Again He says, " / came down from heaven^ not to do mine 
own will, but the will of Him that sent me," verse 38. This 
was not His human flesh and blood, which came from earth. 
Again, " the Jews murmured at Him, because He said, I am the 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OP ST. JOHN. 317 

bread which came dozen from heavenP And they said — how 
is it then He saitli, '-'- 1 came down from heaven P verse 41. 
Again He said himself, " This is the bread that cometh down 
from heaven^ that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am 
the living bread which came down from heaven^'' verse 50. 
He is thus speaking throughout this whole discourse, not of 
the body of manhood, the flesh and blood which He received 
from the human nature of His mother, and which was from 
earth ; but of that which came down from heaven, and which 
therefore could not be His literal flesh and blood ; and that this 
was His meaning, when He spoke of eating His flesh and drink- 
ing His blood, is placed beyond doubt, by His saying in the 
very next verse, " this is that bread which came down from 
heaven^'' v. 58. Throughout the whole discourse. He is speak- 
ing of his divine love, manifested in His coming down from 
heaven for our salvation. It was His divine nature, coming 
down from heaven, and taking our nature for us. It was o*ar 
faith in this — our feeding on this — our living on this as on 
flesh and blood, that is the very life of the -soul : " I am," said 
He, " the Bread of Life, he that cometh to me shall never 
hunger, and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst," verse 
35. The promise of never hungering and never thirsting is 
made to those who believe in Him and come to him. And 
this is just the promise to those who eat His flesh and drink 
His blood ; showing that these simply mean feeding on Him, 
and living on Him by faith. The only diflSculty in the whole 
discourse, arises from not considering the figure which led to 
it. Our Lord charged the Jews with following Him, that they 
might again be fed by a miracle of loaves and of fishes as be- 
fore : " Verily, verily I say unto you, ye seek me, not because 
ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and 
were filled, labor not. for the meat that perisheth, but for that 
meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of 
Man shall give unto you," verse 26. This verse commenced the 
discourse, it forms the key-note which explains the whole, as 
showing the scope and reason of His using the figure of eating 



318 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and drinking wlien He meant coming to Him and believing on 
Him. 

Slie made no remark upon all this ; slie only smiled and 
shook her head incredulously ; she evidently had no ansvrer 
for it. Very little more of importance was said, and we 
parted. 

On my return to the house, where I was staying, I found 
that a young man of some property and influence in the 
neighborhood was to join us at dinner. He was a Roman 
Catholic, who was very much disposed to leave the Church of 
Rome, and with whom I had already had several conversations 
on the subject. 

In the evening, I related to him and my friends the purport 
of my conversation with my fair opponent ; he was a good 
deaV amused as well as interested, and as one thing led to 
another, I said there were other particulars in this discourse, 
that bore heavily against the interpretation of the Church of 
Rome. 

The first was derived from the words on which she dwells 
so much, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
drink His bloody ye have no life in you : whoso eateth my 
flesh and drinheth my bloody hath eternal life, and I will raise 
him up at the last day." It is plain, that if we are to inter- 
pret these words strictly and literally, then the drinking His 
blood is as necessary as the eating His flesh ; the receiving the 
cup is as necessary as receiving the host in the sacrament. 
This touches the practice of the Church of Rome, which gives 
the consecrated bread to the communicant, but refuses the 
cup ! Now, this language of our Lord implies that the prom- 
ise of eternal life is only for those who drink the blood as 
well as eat the bread, and that there can be no eternal life 
for any who take the bread without also taking the cup. If 
then this language is to be applied to the sacrament at all, 
then in the Church of Rome, by withholding the cup, they 
deprive the people of all the blessings promised to the com- 
municant. 

The second consideration is, that if we are to take this 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 319 

discourse strictly and literally, it will prove the very converse 
of Transubstantiation ; thus — if in the words, " this is mj 
body," and " this is my blood," the substantive verb " ^5," is to 
be interpreted as implying a change of the " this" into the 
" body" and into the " blood," then we have a parallel place 
in this discourse, where our Lord says " I am the bread" and 
the substantive verb " am" must imply a similar change ; and 
thus, if the w^ords " this ^5. my body," imply that the bread is 
changed into the body of Christ, then the words, " I am the 
bread" must imply that Christ is changed into bread ! And 
thus if one place proves Transubstantiation, the other will 
prove the converse of it — one proving that bread can be 
changed into Christ, and the other proving that Christ can be 
chano'ed into bread ! 

There is another consideration that has great weight with 
many minds ; it is this ; if we apply this discourse of eating 
the flesh, and drinking the blood to the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper, we must pronounce that it is necessary — abso- 
lutely necessary to salvation, so necessary, as that no man can 
be saved without it, for it is said, " Except ye eat — ye have 
no life in you." And again, it involves the equally objection- 
able position that whoever receives the sacrament, is certainly 
saved, for it is said, " He that eateth — hath everlasting life, 
and I will raise him up at the last day." And thus no one 
can be saved without it, and no one with it can be lost! 
These strange results flow from interpreting these words as 
referring to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Their true 
intention is to teach us that we are to believe on Him whose 
love for poor sinners brought Him down from heaven — whose 
love led Him to become incarnate — v>^hose love led him to die 
for us ; and that the life of our souls is our living and feeding 
by faith on these blessed truths. This is the true receiving 
Christ, and feeding on Christ. 

I can feel for the members of the Church of Rome who 
cling to this discourse of our Lord; not that it in anywise 
gives them the least ground for their favorite dogma : but 
they are ^o habituated to look on it as the great support of 



320 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the system, that the least doubt of its applicability is like an 
earthquake shaking the foundations on which they stand ; and 
yet a mind calm and unprejudiced, that will examine it with- 
out passion or party, will be led irresistibly to the conclusion 
that the subject-matter of our Lord's discourse is very different 
indeed from the institution. of a sacrament. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



A young Convert — The Words, " This is my Body, Blood" — ^Whether Literal or 
Figurative — Examples to illustrate this — Whether our Lord gave a new and 
miraculous Power to the Priesthood — Various Meanings imposed on these Words 
by Eomish Writers — Subsequent History of the young Convert. 

About ten or twelve years before I came to reside at , a 



Eoman Catholic family had emigrated to America. They 
constituted a large party. They were the relics of an old 
family, once possessed of considerable influence and extensive 
property. Indeed their territorial rights were at one time very 
extensive. But that common bane of Ireland, waste and ex- 
travagance, and dissipation and inattention to the commonest 
maxims of prudence, necessitated the gradual sale of one estate 
after another, till each generation became poorer than the 
preceding. At last the representative of the family, being a 
man of considerable energy and good sense, and having many 
children, resolved to emigrate to the back woods of the Far 
West. He took all his family with him except one little girl, 
some five or six years of age. And she was left with an aunt, 
who was possessed of some little wreck of former fortune, and 
who was attached to the little niece, and promised to provide 
for her. 

The aunt was, like her ancestors, a member of the Church 
of Rome, by inheritance as well as by conviction. And she 
brought up her little charge, truly, religiously, affectionately, 
to the best of her judgment. When I commenced my duties 
in the parish, the niece might have been some fifteen or six- 
teen years of age. And it was not till a year or two after- 
ward, that I observed her in my school-room on one or two 

14* 



322 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

• 

occasions of my evening lectures. Shortly afterward I learned 
that she had been induced by one of her young companions 
to read the Scrij^tures — that she had been very strongly 
afiected in reading them — that she had asked to be allowed to 
accompany a young Protestant companion to my lectures — 
that she had attended several of them — and finally, that she 
v/as in every thing but name, a Protestant. 

She was a person of very prepossessing appearance, gentle, 
timid, and retiring^ but a universal favorite among her equals 
in age and station, that is, among the class of inferior shop- 
keepers in a country town. The' recognized and traditionary 
antiquity of her descent gave her a sort of claim to respect, 
never denied among the peasantry. 

The history of this young and interesting person, like the 
history of her unfortunate family, is the tale of too many in 
the sister island. I shall narrate all that is necessary to my 
present purpose. 

I had never spoken to her ; but having learned the state of 
her mind and feelings, I gave my advice to others who had 
access to her, and ample opportunities of speaking with her. 
They carefully attended to my advice, and one evening as I 
visited one of my sick people, with a view to reading the 
Scriptures and praying with her, I observed her enter and seat 
herself with others to listen. As this is a very frequent cus- 
tom among the peasantry, even among the Eoman Catholics, 
there was nothing very remarkable in it, so after some con- 
versation, as v\^as my usual way with the sick, I read a chapter 
and proceeded to comment on it, as in a cottage lecture. 

Our subject led me to speak of the love of the Saviour — a 
love shown in leaving the heavens — ^in walking our fallen 
world — dwelling among fallen men, as partaking himself of 
our fallen manhood — suffering, bleeding, and dying for us — 
and now as our High Priest in the heavens, interceding for us. 
I was led to remark on His leaving in the Holy Scriptures a 
perpetual record of His love — on His sending His Spirit to 
make us fit for the enjoyment of His promises — and on His 
instituting the Lord's Supper as a memorial of his dying love. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 323 

I dwelt on this last as designed by Him as a memorial feast 
or occasion in which His loving and believing people might 
often meet together, and pray together, and speak together .of 
His w^onderful love. There, I said, v/e can sit and kneel to- 
gether, and we can eat of the bread in remembrance of His 
having given His body to be broken unto death upon the 
cross, as a substitute, as a vicarious offering for us, and we can 
drink the wine, in memory of His having shed His blood unto 
death at Calvary to make atonement for us. It was thus a 
dying legacy, in the enjoyment of wdiich we show to each 
other our belief that our forgiveness, justification, salvation are 
derived to us, through the Cross of Calvary. I was en- 
deavoriDg to press on my hearers that the graces and blessings 
for the communicants were not through the mere elements or 
material things themselves, but altogether through the faith 
develoj)ed in the tone, spirit, and prayerfulness of their souls 
when thus engaged. 

While thus expressing myself and dravfing to a conclusion 
without the least allusion to any thing of a controversial na- 
ture, I was asked by an elderly man who sat beside me, to 
explain the words " This is my body," and " This is my blood ;" 
he added, that Roman Catholics understood these words strictly 
and literally, and thought that all the graces and blessings of 
the Sacrament were derived to us through the consecrated 
and transubstantiated elements. And that they did not depend 
on the belief or unbelief of the communicant. They de- 
pended on the material things, external to them, and not on 
the things that were internal. He said, that he asked the 
explanation for the sake of others who were present, as well 
as for himself. 

I gladly acceded to his proposal, and said, that I would 
endeavor to explain the meaning and intention of the words 
of our Lord. And that I would do so the more readily, as I 
believed they were often much misunderstood. We believe 
that our Lord designed the Sacrament to be a commemoration 
or memorial of His death on the Cross. , He said, on giving 
the bread, " Do this in remembrance of Me.^^ And again, on 



324 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

giving the wine, He said : " Do this in remembrance of Jlf^." 
So that we have His own words for believing this Sacrament 
to be a commemoration or memorial of His death on the 
Cross. He took bread and breaking it, gave it to the dis- 
ciples, and said : " Take, eat, this is My body ;" and then giv- 
ing the wine, He said : " Drink ye all of it, for this is My 
blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins." We believe that as He designed this to 
be a remembrance of His gTeat love in dying for us, and in 
remembrance of the blessings which we have obtained by His 
death, so when He said : " Take, eat, this is My body." He 
meant to convey, that we were to partake of that Sacrament, 
receiving the bread as the memorial of His body that was 
broken on the Cross ; and when he said : '' Drink ye all of 
this, for this is my blood," He meant to convey that we were 
to partake of that wine as the memorial of His blood that 
was shed on the Cross. This we believe to be the true and 
natural interpretation of His words. It is surrounded with no 
difficulties, it presents to us nothing marvelous, it involves no 
contradictions, it is encompassed with no absurdities ; it is 
simple and natural, conformable to the usages of language, 
and in accordance with the customs of the Jews. 

This mode of interpretation is conformable to the usages 
of language. There is nothing more frequent than the habit 
of calling the memorial or representation of a thing by the 
very name of the thing of which it is a token. If we enter 
St. Paul's Cathedral, or if we enter Westminster Abbey, we 
are arrested by the sight of many memorial statues. We look 
on one, and we say, " This is Nelson ;" and on another, and 
we say, " This is Marlborough." We do not mean to convey 
that those marble statues are literally chang*ed or transub- 
stantiated into Nelson or Marlborough, but only that they are 
the memorials or representations of those celebrated heroes. 
If we visit the galleries of Windsor Castle, or. of Hampton 
Court, or our National Gallery, as our eyes wander from pic- 
ture to picture, and we m'e told that " This is Wellington," or 



TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 325 

" This is Prince Albert," or " Tliis is the Queen," * we are not 
so reft of all reason as to suppose that our informant intends 
to convey that these lifeless pictures are really changed or 
transubstantiated into the Duke, or the Prince, or the Queen ; 
but only that they are the representations of these remarkable 
persons. If we take a handful of the coin of the realm, and 
look upon the impressions that are stamped on them, we say 
of one, " This is George HI. ;" of a second, " This is George 
IV. ;" of a third, " This is William lY. ; of another, " This is 
Victoria ;" and we are never understood as meaning to con- 
vey that these pieces of copper, or silver, or gold, are literally 
changed or transubstantiated into these royal persons. The 
youngest child is incapable of so gross a mistake, for from 
earliest years we are all familiar with that mode of expression. 
And even the members of the Church of Eome themselves, 
when they look on images or pictures of Mary, or of Peter, or 
of Christ, familiarly say of them, " This is the Virgin," or 
" This is Peter," or " This is Christ," merely meaning to con- 
vey that they are the representations or memorials of them : 
for they, as well as ourselves, are familiar with that method of 
expression, which calls the representation or memorial hy the 
name of that of which it is a 7*eprese7itation or me7norial. 

That this method of expression was as familiar with the 
sacred writers as with ourselves, can easily be demonstrated. 
As clear and beautiful an instance as we could possibly desire 
occurs in the history of Abraham. We read : " This is my 
covenant^ which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy 
seed after thee ; every man-child among you shall be circum- 
cised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; 
and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you." 
— Gen. xvii. 10, 11. It is here said of circumcision in one 
verse : " This is my covenant ;" and then in the next verse it 
is said : " It shall be a token of the covenant,^'' So that we 
have here evidence of the mode in which such expressions are 

^ These are not the illustrations originally given. They were names 
of persons famiUar in the neighborhood, and these are given in their 
stead, to make the illustration more generally intelligible. 



826 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

to be interpreted — tlie token of the covenant being called tlie 
covenant itself. The reiteration of this method of expression 
is so constant in every part of the sacred volume, that the dif- 
ficulty is in making a selection. " These bones are the whole 
house of Israel." — Ezek. xxxvii. 11. "The rough goat is the 
King of Grecia." — Dan. viii. 21. Although it is evident these 
bones were not the reality, but the emblem of the house of 
Israel ; and this goat was not substantially, but only in the 
way of representation, the King of Greece. And in the same 
way, when our Lord says, " I am the Door," and " I am the 
Vine, and ye are the branches ;" it is self-evident that He 
could not possibly have meant that He was literally, truly, 
substantially changed or transubstantiated into a door or a 
vine, or that His people are transubstantiated into the 
branches of a vine. The same remark will apply, w^hen the 
apostle says, " That Rock was Christ," and " This Hagar is 
Mount Sinai." The true, the simple, the natural interpretation 
of these and of all similar expressions is, that, being figurative, 
according to the analogies of every language in the world, 
the sign, or emblem, or memorial is called by the name of that 
of w^hich it is the sign, or emblem, or memorial. And, there- 
fore, we argue, that when our Lord gave the bread to His 
disciples, intending the Lord's Supper as a memorial of His 
death on the Cross, and said, " This is My body," He meant 
to convey that it was to be the memorial or emblem of His 
body broken on the Cross ; and that when He gave the cup, 
and said, " This is My blood," He designed to convey that it 
was to be the memorial or emblem of that blood which was 
shed on the Cross ; and that, partaking of these in the face 
of the Church, every Christian would show his belief in the 
atonement, satisfaction, propitiation, wrought in the death on 
Calvary, and that he looked to it and depended on it for re- 
demption, forgiveness, salvation, and glory. 

My aged friend, who was a very good old man, expressed 
himself perfectly satisfied with my explanation, but said that 
there was a question often asked by his Roman Catholic 
neighbors, and as some few of them were present, he would 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 327 

like me for their sakes to notice it. The question was — 
whether our Lord had not given to the clergy of his Church a 
power to turn — to change the bread and the wine into the 
body and blood and soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. There were several indications among those present, 
approving of the proposal that I should touch on this question. 
I replied, expressing my readiness to answer that or any 
other inquiry to the best of the hght that God had given me. I 
therefore said that so extraordinary a thing as transubstantia- 
tion — so marvelous a miracle as turning a piece of bread into 
God — so great a miracle, and one so different from any thing 
and every thing the world has ever heard, and so great that it 
is, if triie^ the greatest miracle the world has ever seen — 
ought to be provable by evidence more clear and decisive 
than a mere expression capable of a figurative interpretation, 
as all must admit was the case with the words of our Lord. 
For though the advocates of Rome contend that the words 
ought to be explained in a literal sense, yet I have found many 
an opponent candidly admit that they are capable of being 
explained in a figurative sense. And my argument has then 
been, that so extraordinary a doctrine as transubstantiation 
can not be regarded as proved, when it is made to depend iijpon 
a particular interpretation of a phrase^ which it is admitted is 
capable of a totally/ different interpretation. Having thus far 
w^eakened all dependence on this, I have argued further, that 
even if we adopted the literal interpretration of our Lord's 
words — even if we adopted the notion that our Lord did truly, 
literally transubstantiate the bread into His own " body and 
blood and soul and divinity and bones and nerves," — even if 
we adopted this notion, it yet would not serve the purpose of 
the Church of Rome ; because, it would by no means follow 
that because Christ being God was able to perform the mir- 
acle, every Roman priest also should therefore be able to per- 
form it. He walked on the waters : His having done so, is no 
proof that the Roman priests can nov/ walk upon the waters. 
He stilled the winds and the waves : His having done so is no 
proof that the Romish priests can now still the winds and the 



328 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

waves. He multiplied the five loaves and fishes, so as to feed 
thousands : His having done so is no proof that the Romish 
priests can now multiply food so as to supply the wants of 
thousands. He healed the sick, the blind, the deaf, the 
maimed, the leprous, and He raised the dead : His having 
wrought these miracles, by his divine power, is no proof that 
the Romish priests can now perform similar miracles. And 
therefore we argue that, even if we suppose — which we do 
only for the sake of the argument — that our Lord did work a 
miraculous transubstantiation of the bread into God, His hav- 
ing wrought such a miracle by His divine power, is no proof 
that the Romish priests can now work the same miracle. 

When I concluded this, one of the Roman Catholics sug- 
gested in a very modest and courteous way, that when our 
Lord said, " Do this in remembrance of me," He commanded 
them to do the same thing that He did, and of course must 
be supposed to have given them power to do it. Now if 
our Lord transubstantiated the bread and wine into his own 
body and blood and soul and divinity, as the Church believes ; 
then He must have given his apostles power to do the same 
in remembrance of Him. 

I said that this text — these words, had a heavier burden to 
bear in the Church of Rome than perhaps any other words 
in the Holy Scriptures ; for if we ask what authority they 
have for administering this sacrament, they answer — our 
Lord said " Do this." When we ask authority for the laity 
receiving the sacrament, they answer — our Lord said " Do 
this." When we inquire when the apostles were ordained 
priests, they answer — our Lord said " Do this." When we 
ask for evidence that the sacrament is a propitiatory or aton- 
ing sacrifice, they answer — our Lord said " Do this." When 
we ask for their authority for saying that the priests of Rome 
can change the bread and wine into their Saviour and their 
God, they answer — our Lord said " Do this." And thus these 
two little words mean sometimes " Administer this," sometimes 
" Receive this," sometimes " I ordain you priest," sometimes 
" Offer this sacrifice of the Mass," and sometimes " transub- 



TR ANSUBSTANTIATION. 329 

stantiate this." Certainly no two little words ever had so 
much or so many meanings ! Now, I added, it seems to me 
simply to mean that as He and his apostles, his chosen and 
beloved disciples, were then solemnly sitting and eating to- 
gether in holy communion, love, and brotherhood — so in after 
ages, when he was gone from them, they should still meet 
together, and eat and drink together, in holy love and fellow- 
ship and brotherhood, in remembrance of all his love in dying 
for them — ^in remembrance of his sufferings and death for 
their salvation ; and thus these w^ords have no distinctly doc- 
trinal or controversial intention ; but simply desire all his 
loving and believing people to hold such holy and brotherly 
communion too^ether in remembrance of Him : — " Do this in 
remembrance of MeP 

I availed myself of the opportunity afforded me by this to 
express myself upon the importance of Christians cultivating 
a tone of mind and a habit of feeling that should be charac- 
terized by kindness and benevolence, charity and love ; each 
of us in all our conduct showing that, however we are en- 
gaged, we cherish a remembrance of Him who loved us, and 
gave Himself for us. We then all knelt and prayed together, 
and soon after we separated. 

On my w^ay home, I learned, what indeed I had suspected, 
that the young person to whom I had already referred, w^as 
the one at whose wish the question was proposed to me, as to 
the meaninof of our Lord's words. It was the first time she 
had ever heard any thing from me in reference to the Church 
of Rome or any controversial subject. And it led to much 
communication afterward, till she openly avowed herself a 
Protestant, and became a regular attendant at my evening 
lectures in the school-room. She so far complied with the 
wishes of her aunt, that she did not attend the services of the 
Church. 

Her sufferings for the truth's sake, which she loved with all 
the fervor of youth and first love, soon commenced. Her 
aunt threatened and the priest argued. She bore the threats 
of one she very dearly loved, with a sweetness and meekness, 



330 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and at the same time with a depth of afFection that was as a 
knife in her very heart ; but she replied to the arguments of 
the priest always by some appropiiate passage of the Scrip- 
tures, and ever with a quiet and gentle spirit. Indeed, it was 
not her nature to do otherwise with any one, or under any 
circumstances. The result was a system of slov/ but ceaseless 
persecution, originating, no doubt, in the kindest intentions, 
and with a desire to save her soul by bringing her back to 
what they fondly believed the only true Church ; but though 
thus originating, it was not the less bitter and unrelenting. 
At first she was compelled to long fasts, by her aunt denying 
her the accustomed food. Then she withheld her clothes so 
as to prevent her attending the lectures. She even went so far 
as to take from her her shoes and stockings. And finally, she 
turned her bodily out of doors, refusing any longer to support 
her. 

It vfill of course be easier to imagine than to describe the 
state of suffering affliction which that young creature, about 
eighteen or nineteen years of age, was thus already called to 
endure. Separated from her father and mother, from her 
brothers and sisters, by the broad Atlantic — left wholly desti- 
tute as the poorest of the children of poverty — wholy uncon- 
scious v/here she could turn for a roof to shelter her or a meal 
to satisfy her hunger — she could but sit down and weep, and 
she did weep in a very agony of tears. And then, after a 
while, she calmed her heart and turned to Him who desired 
her to cast all her care upon Him, knowing that he careth for 
us. She remembered, as she afterward told me, the words 
of the Psalmist, the first she had ever heard me explain, " I 
have been young and now am old, yet never saw I the right- 
eous forsaken or his seed begging their bread." These words, 
she afterward told me, to use her own beautiful idea, were 
like the tree in a sunny evening after a day of rain ; the 
breath of evening shakes the leaves and all becomes a shower 
of sparkling diamonds. She felt assured that God would 
raise up some means of deliverance. And as she comforted 
herself with these thoughts, one of my poor people, a very 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 331 

poor but very pious woman, saw her, heard her tale, knew her 
former history, and took her to her own home, and told her 
she should have a home with her own three daughters as long 
as she needed it. 

All this was immediately communicated to me. Every 
thing was done to mitigate the feelings of the aunt. She would 
not give way unless on the simple condition of her returning 
to the Church of Rome. And thus this poor young creature 
was flung destitute upon the world. 

This girl, now reduced from comparative independence and 
respectability of station, to the position of one of the poorest 
peasant-girls of the place, was obliged to go without shoes to 
her feet, or a bonnet on her head, cr any one of the comforts 
in which she had been reared, and to which she had been ac- 
customed. Those with whom she lived v^ere very poor, and 
very kind ; but they and she were very much dressed alike ; 
and although I made arrangements unknown to her, by 
which she should be no additional expense to this Christian 
family, yet I felt it was not advisable for me to do more 
than vras absolutely necessary for her subsistence, until such 
time as she could amply prove to the world the sincerity of 
her profession by suffering for it, and until there could be no 
room in the mind of any one for impeaching the motives of 
her conversion. Those who are acquainted with the country 
will appreciate this. 

She now regularly attended the parish church and the even- 
ing lectures at the school-room, and seemed, in her deep pover- 
ty, more happy in her inner life than she had ever been ; but 
such was the sad and painful and disgraceful state of the 
country — such was the accursed spirit of malignity and per- 
secution — such was the lukewarmness of the magistracy, and 
unwillingness to protect on the part of the police, in cases 
where religion was concerned — that every evening, as my 
little congregation issued from the school-room, there was a 
band of men and women ranged in two lines from the doorway, 
and the moment this poor young creature appeared, they all 
raised a yelling, a hooting, and jeering against her, caUing her 



332 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

every opprobrious and contemptuous name for leaving the 
Church of Rome. Nothing could have saved her from per- 
sonal violence but the steadiness and determination of some of 
the men of my congregation, who, though they could not pro- 
tect her from insolence, were well able to protect her from 
violence. This continued for many, many weeks, till the 
people got tired of persecuting her, when they saw that they 
failed to influence her, and when the priest gave up all hope 
of reclaiminof her. 

I had now some breathing-time. I could consider what 
was best to be done for her, and had consulted with some 
whose judgment was of value. She had proved her sincerity 
by her steadfast suffering for the love of the truth. She had 
disproved, in her continued poverty, all insinuations as to her 
being bribed to abandon her former faith. She had ex- 
hibited a steady, gentle, sweet, industrious, humble spirit 
through all her trials : and it now became the duty of Christian 
persons to consider what was best to be done for her ultimate 
provision. 

While we thought of these things with some doubts and 
misgivings and perplexities, there was an unseen hand inter- 
posing in a mysterious way. 

I was sitting and reading one morning in my apartments, 
when a man was announced and entered. After a pause, and 
rather a rough kind of salutation, he sat down and I had time 1 
to examine his appearance. He was very much like the 
skipper of a merchantman — at least hke some I had seen 
in my sea-going years. He was an open, free, frank and 
rough person, homely as a farmer, and fearless as a sailor. 
But I could see there was something at his heart : for 
with all his free manners there was something like a 
tear starting to his eyes. He was to me a total stranger, 
but I felt disposed to like him, and asked him his name and 
business. 

My name, he said, is , from the state of Ohio. 

I instantly recognized the name, and asked whether it was 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 333 

not he who had emigrated from that parish so many years be- 
fore, and had left one daughter behind ? 

He said he was the very man. He had lost his wife and 
was now come back to the old country to recover his child 
and bring her to America, to keep house for him, as his other 
children were all married and settled there. 

Here a God of love and mercy Himself opened out to me 
the best and fittest provision for the young creature. Her fa- 
ther was come for her ! 

After a few words, he told me he had arrived only that 
morning, and went immediately to see his child at her aunt's. 
He expressed himself shocked and indignant at the conduct 
of her aunt in turning her out upon the streets, exposed to 
poverty, destitution, and temptation ; — a young girl who was 
intrusted to her on the promise to love, cherish, and provide 
for her ; and for no misconduct, no vice, no crime, but merely 
because she had changed her religion. He then turned to me, 
and with deep and unmistakable emotion, with a fearfulness 
in his manner, as if afraid of my answer, and yet with all the 
yearning anxiety of a father's heart, he asked me, earnestly, 
what was his child's character, and what was become of her. 

I told him in a few words. 

I shall never forget the effect of my words. That strong, 
rough man was subdued, melted into tears, and sobbed and 
wept like a little child. It was the joy and blessedness of a 
parent's heart scattering all the fears and anxieties that had 
oppressed him. He seemed choking for words to express his 
thankfulness ; and it was some time before he was able to ask 
me to bring him to his child. 

I felt, however, I had a duty to perform to the child as well 
as to the father ; and I hoped that in his then state of feeling 
he might be disposed to make a solemn promise not to inter- 
fere with the adopted rehgion of his daughter. I knew he 
was a Romanist, and I feared his unduly interfering with her 
religious convictions. I therefore expressed myself frankly 
and at once. I told him the circumstances of her conversion, 
I described her piety and religiousness ; I expressed myself 



334 EVENINGS V/ITH THE ROMANISTS. 

strongly as to her good conduct and character ; and finally 
said, that I felt almost unwilling to place her, a Protestant, in 
the hands of him a Romanist. 

He smiled good-humoredly, and said that I need have no 
fear on that head. In America no man interfered, or was al- 
lowed to interfere with the religion of another. It was alto- 
gether different from what it was in his recollection in Ireland. 
This country, he said, in reference to Ireland, is a wretched, 
miserable, factious country, and the people are bigoted and 
priest-ridden, so that they can not help themselves, or get out 
of their wretchedness ; as long as he had lived in it himself, 
he had not only found it so, but w^as himself a helpless, though 
unwilling victim to the system. It was as much as a man's 
life was worth to leave the Church of Rome ; for the faction 
of the priest was sure to do his bidding. But in America all 
was changed ; he felt as if breathing the free air made him 
feel free himself, and entertain free feelings and free opinions. 
He cast aside all the party notions and factious ways he had 
recollected in this country ; and it was impossible in America 
for the priests to have the influence or the power to persecute 
and ill-treat those who leave them. Indeed so many, who 
were inveterate Roman Catholics, turn and leave them — so 
many read the Scriptures — so many go to the Protestant wor- 
ship and prayer and preaching, that it would be impossible to 
interfere with them. 

I asked him then, how, if his child went out with him, how 
she would be provided in the way of public worship. 

He then stated what was very new to me, and certainly 
was extremely interesting. He said he could only speak of 
the country where he had himself settled, and which was very 
extensively settled all around him ; but he believed from 
what he heard of other districts, that it was by no means sin- 
gular. There was no regular or established Church of any 
kind, but clergymen of different Churches used to visit the dis- 
trict periodically. One w^eek we have the visit of a Church 
of England clergyman at the house of one settler, and then all 
the settlers assemble there, and we have the Church of Eng- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 335 

land service; the next Aveek some Presbyterian minister 
comes to the house of another settler, and then all the settlers 
in the neighborhood come together there, and we have the 
Presbyterian prayers and preaching. On another week the 
Wesleyan minister arrives at the house of some one else, and 
we all assemble there, and we have Methodist praying and 
preaching. Then there is the Baptist minister ; and thus v»^e 
have a great number of clergymen, and we assemble very often 
at other houses and sometimes at other settlements. In this 
description he mentioned the names of the settlers and 
clergymen. 

So I asked him how" he managed at his own house : — Had 
he a Eoman Catholic priest ? 

He smiled, and said there v/ere very few of them in the 
country, and that for himself and his family they never wished 
or cared to see one. He said he and his family acted like all 
the other settlers, they went wherever they had the preach- 
ing, and he felt that every one of the clergymen, who thus 
visited them, was a good, earnest man, and he liked them 
better than any priests he had ever known, " and" turning 
earnestly to me, he said, " my little girl shall always go with 
us to the meeting, if you have no objection, for all my child- 
ren always do so.'' 

I could not but feel very thankful at hearing all this, I gave 
him my assent with all my heart, and I would not detain him 
a moment longer from his child. 

A few moments brought him to the house where she lived. 
It was a happy meeting for both parties ; I of course with- 
drew, but saw them the next day. The more I saw of the 
man, the more I liked him. There was an amount of honest 
purpose and right feeling, combined with common sense and 
energy of character that was very unusual ; and he presented 
in his own person, a fine illustration of what the character of 
the Irish might become, when once emancipated from the 
iron priestly domination which oppresses them. Within a 
very few days, he had his daughter well-dressed ; and they 



336 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

caused no small sensation in the place. In faith and hope 
and charity, as well as in prayer, we soon parted. 

The singular statement which he gave, as to the state of 
religious instruction in the remote settlement where he was 
located, seems to account very much for the religious change 
so remarkable among so many of the Koman Catholics who 
have emioTated to America. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATIOK— II. 

An Anecdote narrated by a Eomanist respecting himself— The Argument of a Priest 
answered — Explanation of our Lord's use of His peculiar Language — The Feast 
of the Passover explains His Words — The Argument against Transubstantiation 
from Eeason — Defect of this — The Argument from the Bodily Senses, illustrated 
by an Anecdote — Transubstantiation and the Trinity contrasted — ^The Evidence 
of the Senses, appealed to as Infallible — Always appealed to by God himself in all 
His Revelation. 

The following conversation took place under unusual cir- 
cumstances. 

I had accepted an invitation to dinner. It was near the 
county town, and during the assizes. The larger portion of 
the grand jurors were present. After the usual amount of 
local politics had been discussed, we adjourned to the draw- 
ing-room. Many ladies were present. 

A Roman Catholic gentleman — a member of Parliament — 
.drew me aside and after a few moments' conversation, nar- 
rated the following anecdote respecting himself. 

He had been in Dublin a few days before, and had been in- 
duced by a party with whom he was staying, to go one even- 
ing to the chapel in the to hear a controversial oration 

or lecture from a very celebrated Roman Catholic priest. 
There was a vast assembly, a large amount of excitement, and 
a very splendid display of oratory. He said it was more 
flashy, brilliant, piquant, than he liked for the pulpit, but it 
was very popular and very effective, it was not suflSciently 
calm, collective and argumentative for him, but that perhaps 
was the fault of his taste. It was on the whole a very able 
address. He said the subject was Transubstantiation, and that 
the orator, when handling the words, "This is my body" and 
" This is my blood," had paused, so as to cause an intense and 

15 



338 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

profound silence througli tlie vast congregation, all watching, 
and as it were holding their breath, for hira to proceed. x\t 
this moment he burst out into a passionate and most impress- 
ive tone, asking — " When the blessed Lord said, * This is my 
body,' how dare the Protestants to say, it is not His body '? 
When the blessed Lord said again, ' This is my blood,' how 
dare the Protestants to say it is not His blood ? They are 
always talking about the Sci-iptures, and they are always tell- 
ing us that the Scriptures, the whole Scriptures and nothing 
but the Scriptures, will satisfy them, and yet here the Scrip- 
tures say, ' This is my body,' and ' This is my blood,' how 
dare these Protestants say it is neither the one nor the other, 
but must be explained in some spiritual or figurative or mys- 
tical sense ? " The Roman Catholic gentleman, who narrated 
this, said, it had an electrifying effect on the audience — that 
for himself while he admired the oratory and the acting, he 
could not but think very lightly of the argument — that the 
next day he had dined at the house of a well-known Roman 
Catholic leader — that the priest of the preceding evening was 
one of the company, and that there was some conversation 
about the discourse, and especially about the passage already 
described. This Roman Catholic gentleman stated that he 
himself turned to the priest and said — " When our Lord has 
said ' I am the true vine,' how dare the Romanists to say He 
is not a vine ? When our Lord has said, ' I am a door,' how 
dare the Romanists to say He is not a door ? When our Lord 
has said, ' I am the Good Shepherd,* how dare the Romanists 
say He is not a shepherd ? And when the language of Scrip- 
ture is so clear and plain, saying He is a door, and a vine, and 
a shepherd, how dare the Romanists to deny or contradict 
these words, and say they are to be explained in a spiritual or 
figurative sense ?" He stated, that having said this to the priest 
before all the company, very much to their surprise, he asked 
him how he would answer such an argument from a Protest- 
ant, if urged in reply to his argument ? He added that the 
priest became thoroughly confused, and stammered a number 
of things that had nothing to do with the question, though 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 339 

very much to the amusement of many of the company, and 
especially of their host, whose keen, quick, twinkling eye 
seemed thoroughly to enjoy this confusion of the priest. 
When he had concluded his anecdote, he asked me what I 
thought of his answer ? 

I told him very frankly that I thought he gave as good a 
reply as such an argument would admit of — that the argu- 
ment itself w^as a mere popular clap-trap, and was best an- 
swered in the same way — that Solomon had desired us to 
answer a fool according to his folly, and that in my judgment 
he had given precisely the kind of answer such an argument 
deserved. 

He then said, after a few more observations, that he thought 
that if priests and parsons would explain the language of the 
Scriptures, and tell their meaning and illustrate the reason for 
what they say, they would serve the cause infinitely more than 
by mere controversial arguments, which always appear to be 
too partisan — too much on one side — to influence cool and 
well-balanced judgments. 

I said that such v/as the usual course of the Protestant 
clergy in their ordinary ministrations. At their ordination, 
the Bible was placed by the bishop in their hands with the 
solemn charge to preach the Gospel. This was their duty — 
to preach the Scriptures. 

He replied that I had mistaken his meaning — ^that what he 
had intended to convey was that an explanation of the j)hrases 
in Scripture — a fair, sensible exposition of them, was what 
would prove more useful than any thing else. He would ex- 
plain himself by an illustration. Our Lord said, " This is my 
body," and "This is my blood." Roman Catholics explain 
these words literally. Protestants explain them figuratively. 
Now, what is wanted is some reason — some explanation why 
our Lord used those words instead of any other, and showing 
why, if he meant any thing beyond the very words themselves, 
he did not say more precisely what he meant. If he meant 
them figuratively especially, why did he not so express him- 
self? 



340 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

I replied at once, that his inquiry was perfectly just and 
legitimate ; — that the words our Lord used were precisely the 
words we should have expected him to use, and the words, 
that of all others, were the most easy and the most likely to 
be understood in the circumstances under which they were 
spoken. The meaning of phrases and allusions always de- 
pends more or less on the circumstances under which they 
were spoken. And in this case we should especially consider 
the circumstances. This consideration has always satisfied my 
own judgment, and I felt sure it would satisfy his, if he al- 
lowed me to explain it. 

He most courteously begged me to proceed, for that it was 
a point in which he felt a great interest. 

I tben said — It was when our Lord was eating the Passover 
with His disciples that He instituted the sacrament. It will 
be recollected that the Passover was instituted to be a com- 
memoration of the deliverance of the Israelites from the bond- 
age of Eg}^t, through their being sprinkled with the blood of 
the Paschal lamb. It was when partaking of this festival for 
the last time with His disciples, that our Lord instituted the 
sacrament, to be a commemoration of the deliverance of His 
people from the bondage of sin, through their being sprinkled 
with His blood as " the Lamb of God which taketh away the 
sin of the world. It is admitted — fully admitted by the mem- 
bers of the Cburcb of Rome — that our Lord designed to re- 
scind the Jewish Passover and to substitute the Christian sac- 
rament in its stead. But the precise point which should be 
retained in mind — the point which explains our Lord's words 
in the instituting this sacrament — is, that He instituted it 
while eating the Passover, It was the bread of the Passover He 
took and blessed and distributed. It was the wine of the Pass- 
over He took and blessed and distributed. Every form that had 
been gone through was some form of the Passover ; and every 
word that had been spoken was some word connected with the 
Passover. Under these circumstances, it will be felt by rea- 
sonable men that as it was not unlikely our Lord's words and 
actions, in instituting this new festival, would have some refer- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 341 

ence to those of tlie old festival, so it is to the Passover we are 
to look for an explanation of the sacrament. We feel as sure 
as of any verity on earth, that it is the true explanation of this 
matter. When Moses, at the command of God, instituted the 
feast of the Passover, he desired the Israelites, as we read in 
Exodus xii. 1-14, to kill a lamb — to sprinkle its blood on their 
houses, and to eat the flesh of the lamb. His words are, " Ye 
shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover." Now 
there is nothing more evident than that the lamb they were 
eating, was not the Lord's Passover. The Lord's Passover was 
His passing through the land of Egypt, and passing over the 
houses of the Israelites who had sprinkled their doors with the 
blood of the lamb. The words are, " Ye shall eat it in haste. 
It is the Lord's Passover. For I will pass through the land 
of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-bom in the land 
of Egypt, both man and beast ; and against all the gods of 
Egypt I will execute judgment ; I am the Lord. And the 
blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye 
are ; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the 
plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, whea I smite the 
land of Egypt." — Exodus xii. 12, 13. We thus learn that the 
Lord's passing over the Israelites was one tiling^ and the lamb 
that was eaten by the Israelites was another thing ; that one 
was 2ifact^ and the other a memorial of that fact. And there- 
fore, when Moses says of the lamb, "It is the Lord's Pass- 
over," he must mean that the lamb was the token or memo- 
rial of the Lord's Passover. He could not possibly have 
meant that the lamb which had been roasted and which they 
were eating, was literally, truly, substantially changed or tran- 
substantiated into the Lord's passing over the houses of the 
Israelites. He must have meant, and the advocates of the 
Church of Rome freely acknowledge that he must have meant, 
that the lamb was not literally, truly, substantially the Passover 
of the Lord, but only the token or memorial of it. Though 
Moses simply says : — " It is the Lord's Passover," yet his 
words are to be interpreted as meaning — " It is the memorial 
of the Lord's Passover." We have thus, on their own admis- 



342 EVEXIXGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

sion, an example of that mode of speaking whicli calls the 
memorial by the name of that of which it is the memorial. 

He saw the point of this explanation in a moment. He 
said it seemed natural and reasonable. And he supposed that 
our Lord, in using similar expressions, did no more than what 
was easily intelligible to the apostles ; that is. He gave the 
name of the thing itself to that which was only its memorial. 

I said — he had anticipated my explanation, which was 
founded on the method in which the Israelites celebrated this 
festival every year. This festival was yearly celebrated in 
every family. The lamb having been roasted, the members 
of the household were assembled ; and the head of the family 
or the master of the household, standing at the head of the 
table, pronounced the words — " This is the Lord's Passover." 
He then gave it to those that were present, and they ate it 
according to the injunctions of Closes. Xow there is nothing 
more evident than that the lambs that were thus eaten in 
after-years in the land of Israel, were not truly, literally, sub- 
stantially changed or transubstantiated into the Lord's passing 
over the houses of the Israelites, or even into the original 
lamb of the Passover that had been eaten in Egvpt. There is 
nothing more evident than that these lambs were designed as 
tokens or memorials of that true Passover, which had taken 
place ages before. The advocates of the Church of Rome are 
constrained to acknowledge this. They are constrained to 
acknowledge that in all the families of Israel for so many 
hundreds of years it was usual to say, " This is the Lord's 
Passover," when it was meant to convey — " This is the memo- 
rial of the Lord's Passover :" they are constrained to confess, 
that as eveiy head of a family was in the yearly habit of 
solemnly uttering these words, and that as every member of 
all the nation of the Israehtes was in the yearly habit of hear- 
ing these words solemnly uttered, so there must have been an 
universal knowledge of this mode of expression, by which the 
memorial is called by the name of that of which it is the 
memorial. 

No'w the next step in our explanation which gives the full 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 343 

and clear account of our Lord's words, is, that our Lord had 
assembled with His disciples to eat the Passover ; to celebrate 
with His disciples for the last time this Passover which I have 
been describing. He, there, as the Master or Llead of those 
disciples, must have pronounced the words, " This is the Lord's 
Passover." He must have pronounced those v/ords over the 
Paschal lamb. N'ot that it really was the Lord's passing over 
the houses of the Israelites ; not that it was the original lamb 
that was slain and eaten in Egypt, but that it was the token 
or memorial of it. And thus our Lord, on that occasion, had 
in the ears of all his disciples used this mode of expression, by 
w^hich the memorial of the thing is called by the name of the 
thing of which it is the memorial. And then, when imme- 
diately afterward He rescinded that feast of the Passover, 
and substituted the feast of the Lord's Supper in its stead, it 
was no more than natural that he should use the same mode 
of expression in the new sacrament which w^as used in the old 
sacrament ; it was no more than natural that he should utter 
the same form of phrase respecting the Christian sacrament, 
which only a few" moments before He had used respecting the 
Jewish sacrament ; it was no more than natural that as He 
had the moment before said of the lamb, " This is the Pass- 
over," when He meant, " This is the memorial of the Pass- 
over," so He should now say of the bread, " This is My body 
broken," when He meant, " This is the memorial of My body 
broken." 

He entered very frankly into this, saying it was perfectly 
satisfactory to his mind. He guarded himself against being 
misunderstood as assenting to my opinion against transubstan- 
tiation. He was a Roman Catholic, and believed with his 
Church ; but, he said that did not prevent his seeing that I 
had fairly explained the reason of our Lord using that partic- 
ular form of expression. It was one the apostles were accus- 
tomed to — it was one they had just heard Him apply to the 
Jewish sacrament, so that they felt no surprise, and could 
make no mistake nor misunderstand Him, when they heard 
Him now apply the same form of expression to the Christian 



344 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Bacrament. He seemed fully to imderstand and appreciate 
this explanation, and tlianked me warmly for it. 

He said, however, he had felt another difficulty when he 
had listened to conversations on the subject. It was not that 
he had any very precise or clear views on such points. He 
left such questions of theology to professional men — to the 
clergy — that he was himself born and educated a Eoman 
Catholic, and intended to live and die one, as his family had 
always done before him — that he hoped a man might be a 
good Catholic and a good Christian without troubling himself 
about theological controversy ; but, still, sometimes, he liked 
to understand a subject when made a topic of conversation. 
Now the precise difficulty on which he ventured to ask my 
opinion was this — He had once been arguing with the confessor 
of his family — in fact, his own confessor — on this subject of 
transubstantiation. He had argued, of course, for argument's 
sake, that a man ought not to be required to believe a dogma 
so contrary to his reason — so contrary to his common sense, as 
that the little wafer or bread is really, truly, substantially 
changed into God Himself; — that this little thing, which the 
priest's servant makes, and which the priest blesses, and which 
he holds in his two fingers, and which he places in my mouth, 
and which I eat and swallow, is the great God and Creator 
Himself ! He added that his confessor replied that it was the 
essence of faith — religious faith — to believe what is revealed ; 
and as reason leads often astray, and common sense often mis- 
leads—as they both were liable to great perversion ; so it was 
the province of rehgious faith to believe the revelation of God 
against all the reason and sense of fallen man. It was becom- 
ing a Christian to be humble, and to have an humble opinion 
of his own judgment; and he should therefore bow to the 
revelation of God. He said the priest cited the doctrine of 
the Trinity, as in the same way contrary to reason and com- 
mon sense, as it was called ; but that it was a great inconsist- 
ency in the Protestants that they received the Trinity while 
they rejected transubstantiation. They were both alike con- 
trary to human sense and reason. He concluded by asking 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 345 

me whether I could resolve tliis difficulty, as he should hke, 
he said, laughingly^ to puzzle his confessor. 

I said that his confessor had given a very fair answer to his 
argument ; and that the real difficulty was, that his argument 
was defective ; — that he had not stated the objection against 
transubstantiation correctly, and therefore left himself open to 
this answer. The defect of his mode of stating his argument 
was, that he had said that transubstantiation was contrary to 
common sense and reason. 

And is not that your opinion as a Protestant ? he asked me, 
earnestly. And how else could the argument be stated ? He 
had always thought that that was the objection. 

My reply to this was, that his statement might be very true 
and correct, but was liable to the answer his confessor had 
given to it. The true objection is, that this dogma is contrary 
to the senses — not that it is contrary to reason or sense, as we 
understand the phrase, common sense, but contrary to the 
senses — the bodily senses^ the sense of sight, touch, smell, 
taste. This. is the real objection, and this has no answer. I 
proposed to illustrate this. 

I then narrated the well-known anecdote, sometimes ascribed 
to the celebrated Buckingham. He was confined to his couch ; 
and as the priests were very anxious to make a convert of him, 
he proposed to amuse himself at their expense. He therefore 
yielded to the entreaties of those around him, and consented 
to receive a confessor. This man proceeded to address the 
witty noble on the subject of repentance and death and the 
sacraments. But he disregarded all that was said, in the most 
studied manner ; affecting a sort of wandering or imbecility 
of mind. He held a cork in his hand, spoke of it as his fav- 
orite horse, patted its sides, and stroked its mane, till the con- 
fessor, pitying the state of his mind, spoke to him on the sub- 
ject. He assured him it was not his horse, but only a cork. 
The other insisted it was indeed his horse, and begged him to 
observe its noble neck, its beautiful head, its flowing mane, its 
finely-formed limbs, its splendid action ! Still the good chap- 
lain persevered and argued with him,- to the effect that if he 

15* 



34(3 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

would only looL at it, he might see it was not like a horse, 
but only a cork — that if he would only feel it, he might per- 
ceive it was not a horse, but only a cork — that if he would 
smell it, he might smell that it was not a horse, but only a 
cork — that if he would taste it, he might at once perceive it 
did not taste like a horse, but only a cork. The other seemed 
struck by this process of argument, and gave way, confessing 
he might have been deceived by some one who had told him 
it was his horse, and whom he had hastily believed without 
due consideration. He now was convinced it was only a cork. 
The confessor having succeeded thus far continued his religious 
exhortations, and in the end, proposed administering to him 
the Holy Sacrament, to which he at once assented. Every 
tiling was soon arranged ; and the confessor gave him the 
consecrated host. He asked him what it was ? The confessor 
answered it was the Lord Jesus Christ — it was the body of 
God. This, exclaimed the merry wit, in affected astonishment, 
this Jesus Christ — this the body of God ! It is only a little 
wafer of flour and water ! The good chaplain Was shocked, 
and assured him that it was the body and blood of the Lord. 
The other then proceeded to argue with him, and said, that he 
must be under some mental hallucination, for if he would look 
at it he might see it was not like Jesus Christ, but only a 
wafer — that if would feel it, he might perceive by the touch 
that it was not like Jesus Christ, but only a wafer — that if he 
would taste it, he would perceive that it was not like Jesus 
Christ, but was only a little wafer — that if he would smell it, 
he would at once find that it was not like Jesus Christ, but 
was only a httle piece of flour and water. And he assured the 
confessor that there could be no doubt that a man must be 
out of his senses who believed a thing so contrary to his 
senses. The confessor could only withdraw in despair. 

My Roman Catholic acquaintance was exceedingly amused 
at this anecdote. He thoroughly enjoyed it ; and I suspected, 
from what he said, that he meant to try its effects on his 
family confessor on the next occasion of a controversy with 
him. He mentioned a few droll incidents which had occurred 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 347 

in the history of his family, connected with religious questions, 
and it was some time before I was able to bring him back to 
the object I had in view. 

I reminded him that in the anecdote of the witty Bucking- 
ham and the simple confessor, the former never alluded to 
reason or common sense — had never argued that transubstan- 
tiation was impossible or contrary to reason or common sense. 
If he had done so he could have been answered by some pla- 
titudes and common-places about faith and humility and sub- 
mission of judgment, and about the pride of reason and the 
humility of faith ; and all that kind of thing, which, though 
easily answered, takes a longer time to answer than it deserves. 
He was a man too keen for such a mistake ; he, therefore, 
assailed the doctrine as contrary to the senses^ that is, to the 
bodily senses, to the sense of sight, the sense of touch, the 
sense of taste, the sense of smell. The remaining sense, that 
of hearing, does not bfear upon it. This is the true objection — 
we taste the consecrated elements, and we find they are pre- 
cisely the same they were before consecration ; they taste not 
like Jesus Christ, but simply as bread and wine. We see 
them and observe they are exactly the same they were before ; 
we see they are not like Jesus Christ, but merely bread and 
wine as before. And it is the same with the sense of touch 
and the sense of smell. The objection thus is, that this dogma 
is contrary to the bodily senses. And when stated in this 
way, it has the invaluable advantage that it can not be 
answered, as he himself had been answered by his family con- 
fessor, namely, by alluding to the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
arguing that it too is a mystery contrary to reason and com- 
mon sense, as much as transubstantiation. My objection, I 
said, was not liable to this, for it refers only to the bodily 
senses ; and I can therefore say that however the Trinity may 
be above and beyond these, it certainly is not contrary to 
them. To which of our bodily senses is the Trinity contrary ? 
sight — smell — hearing — taste — feeling ? It is altogether above 
and beyond their reach or range, and can not be tested by 
them, it can not be tried by them. Whereas — and here is the 



348 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

grand difference between it and transubstantiation — the latter 
is properly, and altogether Avithin reach of all our senses, and 
therefore may be tried and tested by them, and when so tried 
and tested, it is found contrary to the bodily senses. . There 
is no parallel between them ; the Trinity is beyond their 
reach, and can not be tested by them. Transubstantiation is 
properly within their sphere, and is rejected by them. 

He was thoroughly pleased with this argument, at least he 
so expressed himself; and he was one who seemed to enter on 
such subjects with an intellectual pleasure rather than a religious 
feeling. It seemed to me that it touched, as it were, a nerve 
in his intellectual system. He asked me several questions, so 
as to make himself perfectly master of the argument ; and he 
said he thought it impossible to answer ; and that he could 
conceive no reply except one that would impeach the certainty 
of the senses. 

I stated, that this very objection had been made ; but that 
the reply was obvious, and all was the more cogent, because 
it was practical. Although perhaps some one of the senses 
may be mistaken under particular circumstances, when the 
other senses are brought to assist it, they can not be mistaken. 
If we suppose an object at a distance so great as that our sight 
may be mistaken, and then bring it so near as that we can 
feel it, and examine it by our sight, and also by our other 
senses- — if we suppose an apple at such a distance that we can 
not see clearly w^hether it be an apple or an orange, yet, when 
bringing it near, Ave examine it by our sight, and see it is an 
apple and not an orange ; and then feel it, and then smell it, 
and then taste it, and then find that each sense proves it an 
apple, and not an orange, we then have the strongest evidence 
that can be submitted to the human mind. And when, in 
like manner, the consecrated bread or wdne is before us, and 
we look on it, and see that it does not look like Jesus Christ, 
but only like bread and wine ; when next we handle it, and 
find that it does not feel like Jesus Christ ; when next we taste 
it, and find that it does not taste like Jesus Christ ; when 
again we smell it, and find that it does not smell like Jesus 



TRANSUB3TANTIATI0N. 349 

Christ, but only like bread and wine : when thus we have 
brouo^ht it to the test of four senses, and find it still the same 
thing, we feel that we have the strongest evidence that God 
can give or man receive, that there is no truth in Transub- 
stantiation, for that the bread and wine do, after consecration, 
retain the very same substance of bread and wine as before 
consecration. 

My Roman Catholic companion seemed frank and -candid. 
He was disposed to admit the force of an argument opposed 
to his own opinions, although he found himself unable to yield 
to it. I felt that I ought not to press the subject more, as he 
suggested no further difficulty. 

There are, however, some members of the Church of Rome 
who feel a difficulty in submitting to the evidence of the 
bodily senses. When I have met such persons, I have en- 
deavored to press on them some of the three following con- 
siderations : — 

In the first place, our Lord appeals to them as the last and 
most decisive court of appeal upon the greatest of all truths. 
After His resurrection. He appealed to His disciples, and "He 
said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts 
arise in your hearts ? Behold My hands and My feet, that it 
is I Myself : handle Me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones, as ye see Me have. And when He had thus 
spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet." — Luke 
xxiv. 38-40. Here was a direct appeal to their senses of see- 
ing and feeling. Again ; we read, that when Thomas came 
and would not believe the accounts he heard, "Jesus came 
and said unto Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold 
My hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My 
side : and be not faithless, but believing." — John xx. 27. This 
was a direct appeal to the senses, as if they were the most 
certain evidence of the truth. We say, the most certain evi- 
dence ; and we are justified in this, because the evidence is 
expressly stated in Holy Scripture to be infallible. We refer 
to the words which open the Acts of the Apostles : " The 
former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus 



350 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

began both to do and to teach, until the day in which He was 
taken up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given 
commandment unto the apostles whom He had chosen : to 
whom also He showed Himself alive after His passion by 
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and 
speaking of the things pertainiDg to the kingdom of God." — 
Acts i. 1-3. It is here stated, that our Lord gave infallible 
proof of His resurrection ; and that infallible proof was the 
fact that the sense of hearing and the sense of seeing^ which 
the disciples enjoyed, and which examined His risen body, at- 
tested His resurrection. This is the only place in the Holy 
Scripture, in which infallihility is mentioned ; and it is not a 
little remarkable that it is applied to the evidence of the 
bodily senses ; so that we have the ^' infallible" evidence of 
our senses against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 

In the second place, it is to be remembered that not only 
in the matter of the resurrection, but also in every thing else, 
it has pleased God to make His appeal to our senses. If He 
has proved the mission of His prophets and apostles by mir- 
acles, it must be felt that He has appealed to our senses. For 
what is a miracle but an appeal to our senses ? It is an ap- 
peal to the sense of sight, by which we see a manifest setting 
aside the course of nature. What is the message of the Gos- 
pel, whether written or preached, but an appeal to our sight, 
by which we read it ; or an appeal to our hearing, by which 
we hear it ? What were the words of Jesus, but an appeal 
to our hearing ? and what were the miracles of Jesus, but an 
appeal to our seeing? If God displayed His hatred of sin by 
destroying the whole world by a deluge of waters, or by pro- 
claiming His law amid the thunders and lightnings of Sinai : 
or if God displayed His love of His people, by sending the 
prophets to preach to us, or by founding His Church in the 
midst of us, or by giving His Son to die for us, He has invari- 
ably made that display, whether of hatred or love, by an ap- 
peal to our senses. And as every prophecy that was deliv- 
ered, and every command that was given, and every doctrine 
that was taught, and every miracle that was wrought, was an 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 351 

appeal to the senses of seeing, or of hearing, or of feeling ; so 
we have the authority of Heaven's example for making oui 
bodily senses the great and final court of appeal. 

In the third place, it is a point admitted by all writers on 
the nature of human knowledge — it is a point clearly estab- 
lished by Locke in his Essay on the Human Understanding, 
that all the knowledge we possess must be through the me- 
dium of the bodily senses. If we have knowledge of past his- 
tory, that knowledge has reached us through books which 
we have read ; or in other words, through our sense of sight 
by which we have read those books. If we have knowledge 
of the transactions of other lands, not by books nor by sight, 
but by the narration of others, that knowledge reaches us 
through the sense of hearing, by which we hear those narra- 
tions. There are other departments of knowledge, which we 
obtain through the channel of the other senses. All our 
pleasures and our pains — all our joys and our sorrows — are 
connected with those things that have reached us through 
one or the other of the senses. And this is so universal, that 
we know nothing, and can know nothing, unless w^e hear it, 
or see it, or feel it, or taste it, or smell it. So universal is 
this that the advocates of the Church of Rome always make 
their own appeal to our senses ; for however they are disposed 
to throw a doubt on their evidence on this question of Tran- 
substantiation, yet they adduce no proof in its support, except 
an appeal to the senses. They point to certain words in the 
Scriptures. And what is this, but an appeal to our sense of 
sight ? And if our sense of sight, when examining the bread, 
may be, as they assert, so mistaken that we only see it as 
bread when really it is Christ, then our sense of sight, when 
examining the words of Scripture, may in like manner be so 
mistaken, as that we only see one thing, when the words are 
really something else. If our sense of sight is competent to 
determine without doubt that these words are in the Scrip- 
tures, then our sense of sight is equally competent to deter- 
mine without doubt whether the consecrated bread be really 
bread or really Christ. 



352 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

I have ever found these three considerations suflScient to 
satisfy calm and earnest and honest inquirers, that our bodily 
senses are not to be set aside, or put in abeyance upon this 
question. But all the advocates of Romanism are not of this 
class ; and indeed they have felt the force of the argument, 
as derived from the bodily senses so much that they have in- 
vented a new system of philosophy in order to counteract it. 
They teach that the appearance and the taste and the smell 
and the feeling of the consecrated bread, are only accidents 
and not realities ; that all these may be there, and yet the 
substance not there ; that all these properties and peculiarities 
of bread may be there, and yet something else, instead of the 
bread, be there all the while ; that the size and the color and 
the shape and every other property characteristic of various 
substances, does not really belong to them — ^that these things 
are only a species of phantoms, a species of hollow nothing- 
ness in themselves, and yet contain something altogether dif- 
ferent from what they seem to contain. The advocates of the 
Church of Rome have therefore been compelled to invent a 
system of philosophy peculiar to themselves, and according 
to this philosophy an object is round and yet not round, and 
it is square and yet not square, and it is long and yet not long, 
and it is white and yet not white ; but white may be black, 
and black may be white, for we are not to judge that it is 
white because it looks white, or that it is black because it 
looks black, for that this color is only an accident or appear- 
ance, and there is really something else of a different color 
under this accident or appearance. We are not to call the 
snow white ; nor the grass gi'een, nor the sky blue, for that 
these are only accidents or appearances, distinct fi'om the 
realities, and so distinct that it may be the snow is really 
black, though it looks w^hite, and the grass crimson, though it 
looks green, and the sky scarlet, though it looks blue. It 
would be obviously impossible, within the Hmits of this paper, 
to expose this system of philosophy as fully as I might ; but 
at least I may ask, if all these accidents of the consecrated 
bread are really nothing else than phantoms and shadowy and 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 363 

unreal nothings, liow comes it to pass that the consecrated 
bread, when kept for awhile, begins to molder and to fill with 
worms and to be eaten by worms, and to vanish away by the 
process of decay, just like all real substances ? It is evident, 
that unreal phantoms and shadowy nothings could not pro- 
duce worms and feed w^orms. And then, when all is decaying 
away, what, I ask, becomes of Jesus Christ, who was sup- 
posed to be the real substance under those accidents ? Has 
He become moldy ? Has He become corrupt ;" contrary to 
the word, " Thou wilt not suffer Thy Holy One to see corrup- 
tion ?" Has He produced worms ? Have the worms been 
eating our Saviour and our God ? And when all appearances 
or accidents are vanished aw^ay, w^hat becomes of Him, who 
is supposed to be the real substance under them ? Has He 
too vanished aw^ay ? They tell us that as soon as the conse- 
crated bread begins to decay — as soon r.s the w^orms appear, 
then Jesus Christ departs, and the annihilated bread comes 
back again, or the whole thing is transubstantiated back again 
into bread ! There is thus a double transubstantiation ! One 
is accomplished with the w^ords of consecration, but the other 
is accomplished without these or any w^ords of consecration. 
In one, the bread is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ, at the 
words of the priests : in the other, Jesus Christ is transubstan- 
tiated back again into bread, at the sight of the worms ! 



TRAN SUBSTANTIA! ION. —III. 

A Scene at the Killeries — An Irish Ecader and a Scapularian — The use of Eidicule 
in Controversy danajeroiis — The Sin of exposing Eeliglon and religious things to 
Scoffing — An Anecdote respecting Maynooth — This Sin charged against the 
Church of Eome — In the Euhrics, De Defectibus, in the Eoman Missal — Again 
in her Views of the Institution of the Lord's Supper. 

Those wlio are acquainted with the West of Ireland — with 
the district in which so many conversions from the Church of 
Rome have lately taken place — will remember the Killeries. 
An arm of the sea, extremly narrow but of great extent, winds 
its way among the mountains forming what the Norwegians 
call a fiord. It is a scene of great wildness, but of beauty and 
grandeur also. 

This district, about twenty-five years ago, was scarcely 
known. There had been no roads that could -be traversed 
except on vfild ponies, until the government made those noble 
roads that have now 0]3ened the district. And for a very 
long period after their completion, there were few indeed wdio 
had love enough for the wild and sublime in nature, to visit 
scenes where it was thought impossible to obtain any accom- 
modation. I had an intense love for such scenery. The 
savage wildness of the place — the perfect solitude that charac- 
terized it — the fine reach of the sea, sweeping in from the 
broad Atlantic — the height and grandeur of the mountains- 
and the deep and intense silence that sometimes pervaded 
mountain, valley, and water, gave to the scene an inexpressible 
chann. At least it was so to my feeling, and frequently I used 
to visit it. I often rode over a distance of about fourteen miles 
to Maam, where the government engineer had built a small 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 355 

house, wliicli on his departure was converted into a little inn. 
There I secured a bed and stabled my horse, and then pro- 
ceeded on foot some eight or nine miles further to the Kill- 
eries. 

One day while here, I observed a fishing-boat with some 
half-a-dozen men laying a net for the salmon. They used to 
ascend this fiord in great numbers. I was looking at them 
for some time from a high rock far above the shore, and I 
noticed two other men seated at some distance, apparently in 
very earnest conversation. They had books in their hands. 
I had not much time to indulge in curiosity as to their books 
or their conversation, though I had my suspicions as to the 
nature of both, when I saw the fishermen preparing to draw 
their nets. They did this usually at a certain state of the tide, 
when they saw the salmon rise. It seemed to me as if the 
nets checked the advance of the fish, which immediately rose 
to the surface to advance up the bay ; upon this the fishermen 
drew the nets, and as I descended to witness this, I reckoned 
nearly forty salmon, netted at a single haul ! I spoke to the 
fishermen, and to the cadgers with little ragged ponies and 
donkeys, with panniers, who purchased the fish at about one 
penny the pound, and immediately proceeded further inland 
to obtain a market for it. They had from fifteen to twenty 
miles to travel, before they could have the slightest prospect 
of selling a single fish. 

When leaving this busy httle scene of fishing, I observed 
the two men whom I had before noticed in conversation. 
They knew who I was, and addressed me wath the usual 
courtesy of the people. I found that one of them was an 
Irish reader, that is, one who taught the Irish language, and 
who was in the habit of reading the Holy Scriptures in Irish 
in the cottages upon the mountain. The other was a confra- 
ternity man, a very zealous and active Roman Catholic, whose 
knowledge of Latin had given him a great reputation among 
the peasantry. They had been engaged in an animated though 
friendly controversy. 

The Roman Catholic appealed to me whether it was right 



356 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

to have recourse to ridicule on so serious a subject — that 
there was nothing held in the Church of Rome in so great and 
profound behef and reverence as the doctrine of the Holy 
Sacrament. They believed that it was very Jesus Christ — 
that it was God himself — that after the holy words of the 
priest the conversion or change took place, so that it was no 
longer the wafer or bread, but the God-man Jesus Christ him- 
self — that this was their belief, and that therefore they looked 
on it with every possible reverence. Now he complained that 
his companion had been arguing against this doctrine, in a way 
that turned it into ridicule, so as greatly to distress and pain 
his feelings, for that the subject was too grave and solemn for 
ridicule, and he felt it touched his rehgion too closely for 
him to like it. He did not, and would not, show anger 
toward his companion, whom he very much respected and 
liked because he was a good man and could talk well, but he 
did not like his rehgion to be ridiculed, and appealed to me 
whether it was right. 

It was apparent from the radiant countenance of one and 
the annoyed expression in the face of the other, that some 
hard hitting had passed between them, more to the satisfaction 
of the Protestant than of his Romanist friend. 

I said, however, that ridicule was a very effective, but veiy 
often a dangerous weapon. It sometimes, like the knife of the 
operator, by cutting too deeply, not only cut away a cancer, 
but even life itself. And thus often in throwing ridicule on a 
given dogma, there is danger of the sense of the ridiculous 
going too deep — adhering to the subject itself independent of 
the dogma, and thus it sometimes tends to a spirit of skeptic- 
ism and infidelity. Such a weapon, therefore, should be used 
only with extreme caution ; but it was clear that it might 
sometimes be used, and I showed that by reference to 1 Kings 
xviii. 27, where the prophet of God pours ridicule upon the 
gods of the heathen, " Elijah mocked them and said. Cry 
aloud : for he is a god ; either he is talking, or he is pursu- 
ing, or he is in a journey, or perad venture he is asleep, and 
must be awaked !" Here was ridicule. The thing, therefore, 



TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. ^57 

is admissible, thoiigli certainly it should be very seldom, very 
sparingly, and very cautiously used, both for the sake of the 
subject itself, which is sacred, and for the sake of others, 
whose feelings may be wounded by it. I added that in this 
case, the fault was not in the prophet who ridiculed these 
absurd notions about the gods of the heathen, but in the 
heathen themselves, who invented notions so essentially ridic- 
ulous. If we would avoid ridicule, our truest course is not to 
make ourselves ridiculous. 

The Scripture-reader said very kindly that he had never 
ridiculed the religion of his friend — that he was detailing an 
anecdote and narrating what others had done, and that his 
friend had supposed he was ridiculing the Church of Rome. 
It was altogether a mistake so far as he w^as concerned. He 
then mentioned that he was narrating what he had heard 
some years before, and which was called to mind by seeing a 
missal in the hand of his companion. Some gentlemen, of 
whom one had been a Roman Catholic, educated at Maynooth, 
but who afterward became a Protestant, were visiting the col- 
lege. They took with them a very small, short tract, printed 
on a single fly-leaf. This tract contained certain extracts from 
the missal and a few questions on each extract. These ex- 
tracts were directions about the consecrated host in case a 
mouse should have eaten it, or the winds carried it away, or a 
dog run away with it, or a communicant vomited it ; and the 
questions were as to whether they really believed with the 
Church of Rome, that if the consecrated host was God him- 
self. He could not save himself from a mouse, or the wind, or 
a dog, or the sickness of a communicant ? He added, that he 
knew nothing of the facts, but that he heard that the three 
gentlemen brought a number of these to the College of May- 
nooth, and as they went over it, they thrust them into every 
little corner or curious hole — on every book-shelf, or in every 
bed, and so left the college. It was said sometime after, that 
several of the students were expelled for heresy, and it was 
believed that they had found these papers, and were led to 
reject a belief in Transubstantiation. He concluded by saying 



358 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that he had only mentioned this anecdote, and seeing his com- 
panion with a missal in his hand, and knowing that he under- 
stood Latin, he had asked him to see whether these things 
were really in the Roman Missal. 

This gave a turn to our conversation, when I remarked that 
wherever the foult was, it certainly was not with him, who 
had only narrated the conduct of others. Our Roman Cath- 
olic friend acknowledged this, but added, that it was very 
wrong to throw any ridicule on the religion of others ; and es- 
pecially to invent such calumnies against the most sacred of 
all the doctrines of the Church. There was nothing of the 
kind in the Roman Missal, or he would reject them himself as 
much as any one in the world. 

I then stated that there was a sacredness, a religiousness, on 
such subjects that ought to remove them beyond the pale of 
ridicule, but that often it was difficult to speak of some relig- 
ions, without a sense of the ridiculous. In some countries, as 
in parts of Africa, when a man means to pray from his inner- 
most soul he writes his prayer upon paper, and then swallows 
it, thinking it then a prayer in his heart ! In other lands, as 
in Thibet, when a man would pray much, he writes his prayer 
on paper, and places it in a rotatory machine, and supposes 
that his prayer is multiplied by every turn of the wheel, and 
that he becomes thus a man of many prayers ! Practices like 
these throw an air of the absurd and ridiculous upon religion, 
and tend to degrade it in the eyes of thinking men. Now the 
sin here would not be in the men, whose sense of the ridicu- 
lous is excited by such absurdities. The sin — and it is a great 
sin — is with those who invest rehgion with accessories that 
are ridiculous or absurd. 

But, said the Roman Catholic, these are heathenish religions, 
and not real religion at all ; and there is nothing in the Church 
of Rome that could excite the ridicule of any. 

I stated quietly and very gently to him, that that was the 
very question between him and his companion — that his com- 
panion had heard that there were such things in the Roman 
Missal, and had asked him to read and inform him whether it 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 359 

indeed was so. Now, I added, it is a sad and painful fact, that 
all he has stated is really in the Roman Missal, and surely 
you will allow that if the Church of Rome has printed such 
things in her Missal, it is she who is to bear the blame for in- 
serting things so ridiculous and absurd — rather than those who 
expose them. 

He said with great frankness, that if he thought such things 
were in the Missal, he would fling it into the sea from that 
spot where we then stood, aud never would blame any man 
for ridiculing things so deserving of ridicule. He spoke with 
evident earnestness. 

I then asked him for the Missal. He gave it to me at once, 
and opening the rubrics respecting the defects de defectihus 
and other matters, I asked him to read with me, as he under- 
stood Latin. I then read as folio Vv^s — 

" If the consecrated host disappear either by an accident or 
by the wind, or by a miracle, or by having been eaten by any 
animal, and can not be found, then let another host be conse- 
crated." 

Now here, I remarked, you believe that the consecrated Host 
is no longer bread, but Jesus Christ Himself — God Himself, no 
longer the creature, but the Creator, no longer bread but God ; 
and yet here the Church of Rome supposes the marvelous ab- 
surdity of Jesus Christ — may God pardon the thought — 
being mislaid and lost by an accident ! — carried away by the 
wind ! and devoured by some animal ! 

I must do the man the justice, to say that he seemed 
shocked at this. I made him read it for himself, and he 
seemed more shocked than before. I then directed his atten- 
tion to another rubric. 

" If a spider, or a fly, or something else have fallen into the 
chalice before consecration, let him throw the wine into a 
suitable place, and place other wine in the chalice ; let him 
mix a little water, oflfer it as above, and continue the Mass. If 
a fly or something of this kind have fallen after consecration^ 
and nausea arise in the priest, let him take it out, and wash it 
with wine; at the end of the Mass, let him burn it, and let 



360 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the combustion and lotion of this kind be thrown into the sac- 
rarium. But if he has no nausea nor fear of any danger, let 
him take it with the hloodr 

In the old editions, I remarked, there is the case supposed 
of a mouse making away with Jesus Christ ! Here however, 
we have only the case of a spider, or gnat, or fly, falling into 
the cup. And for this awful delinquency, the poor spider, 
or fly, is to be carefully washed and prepared, and then, as if 
it were a heretic, it is to be burned to death ! But if the 
priest should be able to swallow it along with the wine, with- 
out danger of sickness of the stomach, he is desired so to take 
it. And the httle transgressor, instead of being burned to 
death, is destined for the higher privilege of being swallowed 
by the priest ! 

Again : " If in winter the blood he congealed in the chalice, 
let the chalice be wrapt in warm cloths ; if this does not suc- 
ceed, let it be placed in hot watei- near the altar, provided it 
does not enter into the chalice, until it be melted." 

Here our Creator, our God, the soul and Deity of Jesus 
Christ, are supposed to be frozen ; and, as if He had no power 
to warm himself, the priests are to cover Him with warm cloths. 
And if He will not be softened by this. He is to be placed in 
hot water — in a warm bath till He is melted ! 

Again : " If through carelessness some of the blood of 
Christ have fallen — if indeed on the earth, or on the board, 
let it he licked ivith the tongue^ and let the place itself be 
scraped as much as is suflicient, and let what has been scraped 
off be burned ; and let the ashes be laid up in the sacrarium. 
But if it have fallen on the stone of the altar, let the priest suck 
up the drop : and let the place be well washed, and the ablu- 
tion be thrown into the sacrarium. If a drop has come on 
the hnen of the altar, and to the second linen — ^if even to the 
third, let the linen coverings be thrice washed^ where the drop 
has fallen, placing the chalice under, and let .the water of ab- 
lution be thrown into the sacrarium." 

Here if the Lord Jesus should fall from the carelessness of 
the priest — as if the Lord coul^ not take care of himself — 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 361 

He is to be licked up by the priest, and there is to be washing 
of the hiien, and scraping of the earth, or rubbing of the 
board, that none of Him remain there ; whereas if it be really 
transubstantiated into Jesus Christ, as the Church of Rome 
would persuade us — ^if it really be Jesus Christ, and not 
merely wine, we might suppose He could go away of Himself, 
if He did not choose to remain. 

How is it possible, I asked, to read such rubrics as these, 
sanctioning such strange absurdities, without either our sense 
of ridicule being intensely excited, or our whole soul shocked 
at their profanity ? But there remained another, it gives in- 
expressible pain and sadness to read it, worse and more pro- 
fane than all. It is as follows : 

^^ If the priest vomit forth the Eucharist^ if the species ap- 
pear entire, let them he reverently taJcen (i, e., eaten again), 
unless nausea arise ; for in that case, let the consecrated species 
be carefully separated, and let them be replaced in some 
sacred place, until they are corrupted, and afterward let 
them be thrown into the sacrarium. But if the species do 
not appear, let the vomit be burned, and the ashes be thrown 
into the sacrarium." 

Of this, I said, I would say nothing. It supposes the priest 
to receive his God, and then to vomit his God ! I added that 
I had no desire to throw scorn or ridicule upon the Church 
of Rome ; and though if so disposed, I could find abundant 
example in the biting sarcasms of the prophet Isaiah against 
the wooden gods of the heathen, and in the bitter irony of 
the prophet Elisha, against the idols of Baal, yet the very lan- 
guage of the Church of Rome herself has used — the very 
cases she herself has supposed — the very directions she her- 
self has given — the very pages of the Roman Missal she 
herself has written — are more biting than any sarcasm that 
we could frame, and more bitter than any irony that we could 
utter. When she supposes a priest to vomit his God, and 
when she directs him to partake of it — to swallow it again, 
she exhibits herself, not only as the mother of superstitions, 
but also as the mother of abominations. 

16 



362 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Eidicule assuredly is not the weapon with which to deal 
with such a system, however much it may deserve it or pro- 
voke it. It is weeping and shame and humiUation, that most 
become us, where any professing Church can expose the most 
sacred things of Christ to the jests of the scoffer, and the ridi- 
cule of the infidel. 

During the reading of these rubrics, which I made our 
Roman Catholic companion read with me, he never spoke, but 
stood with lips closely compressed, his eyes cast down, and a 
troubled expression on his countenance. After a pause, he 
said that he had never before read that portion of the Missal ; 
but now that he had seen it, he could no longer blame those 
who ridiculed the book, however little he liked ridicule 
against his Church. He then took the Missal from my hands, 
and with all his force he flung it over the steep chfF-like 
banks to perish in the sea, using the emphatic words, " I have 
done with the Missal !" 

I took the opportimity of the casting away of the Missal to 
call his attention to " the casting away the word of the Lord 
of Hosts," which was charged against the unbelieving Jews. 
— Isaiah v. 24. It was the sin of the Church of Rome, that 
she practically cast it away. And while enlarging on the 
value, the usefulness, the power of the Holy Scriptures, I 
expressed a hope, that as he had cast away the word of his 
Church, so he might now be induced to take up the Word of 
his God. 

One observation led to another, especially as his mind was 
still dwelling on our former subject, and he was asking ques- 
tions respecting it. I was induced thus, while walking home- 
ward toward my inn, having been accompanied a large por- 
tion of my way by both the men, to state again that whatever 
were the evils connected with ridicule and sarcasm in refer- 
ence to religious tenets, they belonged to those who held and 
taught ridiculous and absurd tenets, rather than to those who 
exposed their ridiculous and absurd character. 

I illustrated this by specifying the doctrine of Transubstan- 
tiation. In order to uphold that doctrine in the Church of 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 363 

Rome, it is taught that our Lord <^lebrated the first Mass — 
that in instituting the sacrament of the last supper, he cele- 
brated the first sacrifice of the Mass. This is broadly asserted 
in most of the catechisms of the Church of Rome. It is 
essential to the Mass that the celebrating priest shall himself 
partake of the elements in both kinds, shall partake of the 
consecrated bread and the consecrated wine ; at least, it is so 
asserted in that Church ; so that if our Lord celebrated Mass 
on that occasion, He must have partaken of it Himself. Now 
the difficulty is this — one that, Were it not for the sacredness 
of the subject, and the religiousness of all its associations, 
might awaken unmeasured ridicule — If our blessed Lord, in 
consecrating the bread and wine, did really, truly, substan- 
tially change or transubstantiate them into Himself, into his 
own body, and blood, and soul, and divinity — if our blessed 
Lord did all this, as the Church of Rome teaches, then He 
must have held Himself in his own hands, and given Himself 
to his apostles to eat, and they must have eaten and swal- 
lowed Him, as all the while He was sitting at the table before 
them ! And this not once, but twice ; first when He gave the 
bread, and afterward when He gave the cup. 

" Well, sir," he said, with a calm and quiet manner, 
" strange as it may seem to you — ridiculous and absurd as it 
may seem to you — I believe it. The Church has declared it. 
The Church believes it — and I believe it." He added imme- 
diately afterward, that He could not be surprised at persons 
regarding it as ridiculous and absurd, who did not believe the 
Church. 

I then said — ^we both were speaking in the most friendly 
manner, and were on the frankest terms — that that was not 
the only difficulty. By the doctrine of the sacrifice of the 
Mass, the officiating priest must partake himself of the sacri- 
fice, whether there are or are not other communicants. On 
the occasion, therefore, of the last supper, our blessed Lord 
must, according to the Church of Rome, have partaken of the 
sacrament ; and thus, not once, but twice — fii'st on eating the 
bread, and then on taking the wine — He must have eaten and 



364 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

swallowed Himself! Now I appeal to yourself, I said in all 
earnestness, whether a Church, which teaches so monstrous a 
thing as this, is not guilty of throwing upon religion the 
utmost amount of ridicule, and exposing it to the scoff of an 
unbelieving world. It is enough to make good men doubt 
whether most to weep in sorrow and sadness, or to pray for 
the annihilation of such a Church. 

He seemed to feel the grossness of this consequence, but 
suggested that it was not clear in Scripture that our Lord 
Himself partook of this sacrament. 

My reply to this was, that I agreed with him that it was 
not so clearly stated in Scripture ; but that the difficulty, un- 
happily, was that the Church of Eome had clearly asserted 
it ; teaching that our Lord, on that occasion, celebrated the 
first sacrifice of the Mass, and that it was necessary to the 
being of that sacrifice, that the celebrating priest should him- 
self partake of it. The Church of Rome had herself created 
the difficulty. 

He acknowledged this. But he never swerved from his 
position throughout a long conversation that ensued. He 
always stated, when hard pressed, that the Church believed 
it, and therefore he beheved it. This, after a time, led us 
from our first subject into that which concerned the authority 
of the Church. 

After we had parted from him, the Scripture reader accom- 
panied me a little further. 

I gav^e him some precautionary advice as to arguments de- 
rived from ridicule — that the sense of the ridiculous was very 
strong in the Irish character, stronger than in most nations — 
that for that cause it was possible it might cut further and 
deeper than might be wise or good — and that therefore it 
should never be resorted to unless with extreme discretion. I 
added that ridicule often shook men out of one set of opinions, 
but never landed them in another. 

We soon after parted. The seeds that were then sowing in 
that country, have since been bringing ^prth fruit abundantly. 

I had yet some miles before me, and had some time for re- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 365 

flection, and my thoughts ran on the mistakes that are often 
made in the conduct of controversy. How often we run into 
the vice of attacking the opinions of others instead of simply 
illustrating our own, and how often we begin by selecting the 
very points on which we differ, thus exciting and provoking 
collision and opposition, instead of those points on which we 
may be agreed, and which would therefore tend to make us 
bear the more willingly with each other. I am convinced 
that this latter is the best and truest process, and incompar- 
ably the most successful. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 

The state of Ireland twenty-five Tears ago — Controversy and Conversions — True 
Mode of Controversy — Half-Communion — Institution — Primitive Practice — Ad- 
mitted by Councils of Constance and Trent — The withdrawal of the Cup — ^Argu- 
ments in its favor examined— Whether administered to the Apostles as Priests — 
The Argument of Concomitance — The History of this Controversy — Jacobel de 
Mysa and John of Leyden — Their Arguments — The Civil War that ensued — Mo- 
tives assigned for withholding the Cup — Other Arguments examined. 

The following paper was written twenty-five years ago. It 
was a time of mucli inquiry and discussion on the doctrines at 
issue between the Roman and Protestant Churches. In no 
place was it for a time attended with happier results than in 
the parish in which I held a cure. A great majority were 
Roman Catholics ; among these a very considerable number 
had resolved to read the Holy Scriptures for themselves, and 
form their own judgments on the topics so generally discussed 
around them. For many months scarcely a day passed with- 
out one or more of them asking my solution of the difficulties 
under which they labored ; and the result was, that one hun- 
dred and ten individuals withdrew from the Church of Rome 
and entered the Church of England. 

On each Sunday, as in the communion-service of our Church 
I had concluded the reading of the Nicene Creed, I paused for 
a few moments. One or two or more pew-doors were then 
opened, and one or more persons, till then always Roman 
Catholics, advanced to the communion rails, each accompanied 
by two of the Protestant parishioners. I had carefully ex- i 
amined them previously. They stated before the church their 
desire to be received as members of the Church of England. 
And when their religious opinions and moral character were 



HALF-COMMUNION. 367 

avouclied by their Protestant neiglibors vvho accompanied 
them, they were received by me into the congregation. This 
continued for several months with scarcely the omission of a 
single Sunday. The strangeness of the scene, occurring as it 
did in a retired country parish, created great excitement. 

It could not continue long. As one of these converts rose 
the morning after he had been thus received, and opened the 
door.of his house, he perceived his grave already prepared — al- 
ready dug before his door, and found a notice requiring him to 
return to the Church of Rome or prepare immediately for his 
grave ! The following night a number of men dashed open 
the door of his house — asked whether he intended to comply 
with their commands — on receiving a refusal they beat him 
dreadfully, and then xvith. sl vessel of water they proceeded to 
rebaptize him forcibly into the Church he had forsaken! 
Then smashing to atoms every article of furniture in the house 
they departed. This man continued faithful, and one of those 
misguided fellows was convicted of the offense and transported. 

There was another still more painful affair. The school- 
master of the Roman Catholic school had been reading the 
Holy Scriptures for some time, and at last announced his in- 
tention of going to the parish church and there renouncing 
the Church of Rome. When the day arrived, he left his cot- 
tage at the usual hour, but never reached the church. On 
that holy day — that day of rest, and peace, and love, he was 
waylaid — his brains dashed out, and thus he was atrociously 
murdered on the high-road between his cottage and the 
church ! The New Testament and some Protestant tracts 
were found in his pockets. The murderers were never dis- 
covered. 

A few more incidents of a similar character spread a terror 
through the neighborhood. Fear seized upon every one. 
The conversions ceased, and immediately the population began 
to emigrate. The converts were among the first that went, 
and they were soon followed by many who sought in a far 
distant clime the religious freedom that was denied them in 
their fatherland. 



368 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

It was during this period, and when mncli engaged in 
practical controversy, that the following paper was written. 
It was at the request of one who is now in another and hap- 
pier world. 

In all conversations with true-hearted and earnest memhers 
of the Church of Rome, it is of importance to avoid a tone or 
spirit of controversy — not avoiding the discussions of essential 
differences, but discussing them, as far as possible, in a non- 
controversial manner. We too often seek for some point in 
dispute — seize it with avidity, and in a pugnacious spirit we 
proceed to argue which is right and which is wrong. The 
tendency of this is to alienate rather than unite men. It 
would be infinitely better in every way, and far more success- 
ful, if we sought rather some point on which we are sure to 
be in accord — to commence the conversation, not on points on 
which we are at issue, and which would at once awaken a 
spirit of resistance, but on principles that are common to both 
Churches. This process leads to a kindlier tone, and a more 
free and frank expression of the inner feelings. It tends to 
establish confidence, and when once this is established, there 
will be little difficulty in laying down some broad principles 
upon which any argument may afterward be based. A wise 
controversialist will always use such admitted principle — such 
acknowledged truth as the right arm of his after-discussion. 

I would illustrate this. 

It is not difficult to dwell on the example of Jesus Christ 
as the perfect model which we should follow. It is easy 
as well as pleasant to dilate on His mercy and goodness, and 
love and benevolence. It is easy as well as profitable, to 
dwell on His purity and holiness, and His wonderful life and 
death. It is easy to present Him as the perfection of human 
nature, and therefore as One whose example we should follow 
in all that is possible. Whatever be the example He set 
should be the object of our earnest imitation, so earnest as 
that we should feel a sacred ness and religiousness in it, and 
feel that we are departing from Christ in exact proportion as 



HALF-COMMUNION. 369 

we are departing from the example lie has left for om* imita- 
tion. Every Roman Catholic will readily assent to this, and 
therefore in this we hav^e a truth or principle in common, on 
which we can safely argue. 

It is also ^ not difficult to dwell on the sacredness that in- 
vests all his words and precepts. All that came from his lips 
was full of life and light and love, and will be felt to possess 
such a sacred religiousness and authority and majesty that 
every mouth must be stopped — every objection silenced — 
every argument set at naught — every thought suppressed that 
comes in collision with his words. ■N'either man nor Church 
can demand any thing that is clearly opposed to his words. 
When he has spoken, all mankind must be silenced. The 
question is already decided, Causa finita est ; every Roman 
Catholic will acquiesce in this, and therefore here again there 
will be a common principle. 

It is not difficult too to come into accord as to the deep 
and essential sacredness of the sacraments. It is felt by all, 
and the feeling is probably as deep and profound among the 
members of the Church of Rome, as among ourselves, that as 
they are the rites instituted by Christ Himself, as the signs 
and seals of our covenant relationship, so they ought to pos- 
sess a peculiar sacredness of character in our eyes. And al- 
though there may be a difference between us as to the num- 
ber of sacraments, yet there can be no difference in reference 
to those of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, which are fully 
admitted by both alike, as being entitled to a peculiar, reve- 
rential, scrupulous and hallowed care, that nothing be done 
contrary to the words or opposed to the example of Jesus 
Christ respecting them. 

These principles will be readily admitted |ven by those 
who refuse to recognize the Holy Scriptures as the sole rule 
of faith and practice, and who refuse to submit to any private 
interpretation of them. These principles being settled, it will 
be easy to object against the practice of half-communion in 
the Church of Rome, as a practice that prevents the possibili- 
ty of our joining her communion. 

16* 



370 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Her practice is this — The priest, who officiates, consecrates 
both bread and wine ; he then himself partakes of both kinds 
— both the bread and the wine, and then, when administering 
to the people, he gives them only in one kind — only the bread, 
and not the wine. This is the practice of the Church of Rome. 
The priest receives in both Mnds^ the communicants receive 
only in one kind. 

The argument is as follows : 

It has been admitted that we should strictly follow the 
loords of our Lord — that we should as far as possible imitate 
the example of our Lord — that we should be specially careful 
to do this in so sacred a matter as the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper, Now, the practice of half-communion in the Church . 
of Rome is admitted to be contrary to our Lord's words, and 
opposed to our Lord's example. 

Those words and example are as follows : 

" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat ; 
this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and 
gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it ; for this is my 
blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the 
remission of sins." — Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. 

" And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and 
brake it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my 
body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, 
he gave it to them : and they all drank of it. And he said 
unto them. This is my blood of the new testament, which is 
shed for many." — Mark, xiv. 22-24. 

" And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and 
gave unto them, saying. This is my body which is given for 
you : this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup 
after supper, saying. This cup is the new testament in my 
blood, which is shed for you." — Luke, xxii. 19, 20. 

" For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered 
unto you. That the Lord Jesus the same 'night in which he 
was betrayed took bread : and when he had given thanks, he 
brake it, and said, Take, eat : this is my body, which is broken 



HALF-COMMUNIOX. 371 

for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same 
mimner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 
This do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup of the 
Lord, unv/orthily, ye shall be guilty of the body and blood of 
the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat 
of that bread and diink of that cup." — 1 Cor. xi. 23-28. 

When these four distinct and independent narratives are 
read, it will be seen that they all agree in the one great fact, 
that our Lord instituted t'lis sacrament in both kinds — that 
He administered it in both hinds — that the apostles received ii 
in both kinds. They also agree in this important fact that oui 
Lord on giving the bread, said precisely the same as on giving 
the wine, and gave identically the same command on giving 
the wine as on giving the bread. The only distinction dis- 
cernible is, that according to St. Matthew, He added the 
speciality on administering the cup, " Drink ye all of it," as 
if he foresaw with prophetic eye the futui'e withdrawal of the 
cup, and gave his special commandment as a warning of it. 
And in like manner, there is added in St. Mark the further 
speciality, " and they all drank it ;" as if to record for all 
posterity the fact that, in the original institution, when our 
Lord himself administered, and the apostles themselves re- 
ceiv^ed, they received the wane, as well as the bread. These 
specialities were not without design, and are very significant ; 
and the after-history of the Church has proved their import- 
ance, and illustrated their true significance ; for in the Church 
of Rome, no priest can now say to his communicant, " drink ye 
all of this," nor relate of them, that " they all drank of it," 
for the Roman priest who ofiiciates, reserves the cup for him- 
self alone, refusing to administer it to the whole body of com- 
municants — whether priests or laity. His practice is thus in 
direct opposition both to the words and to the example of 
Christ himself, in the sacred matter of this sacrament. 

AYhen the subject has been placed in this hght before th^ 
more candid and earnest members of the Church of Rome, 
especially if it be done with kindness and courtesy, and the 



372 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

language be fasliioned so as to be free from bitterness or scorn, 
it is sure to act strongly upon tbem. In nine cases out of ten, 
they are not aware of the distinctness of these gospel narra- 
tives. They are not generally acquainted with the Scripture 
narrative. And they are thus taken by sui^rise. When I 
have observed this, I have usually added — that there was a 
further consideration that aggravated the conduct of the 
Church of Rome in this matter, namely, that it was adopted 
and enforced with the knowledge — the avowed knowledge, 
that it was opposed to the words and contrary to the example 
of Christ himself, and to the practice of the apostles, and of 
all the primitive Church. 

The canon of the Council of Constance admits this. 

" This Holy General Council of Constance assembled by the 
Holy Ghost, declares, decrees, defines, that although (licet) 
Christ did after supper institute the holy sacrament, and ad- 
minister it to his disciples in both kinds, yet notwithstand- 
ing this, the laudable authority of the sacred canons, etc. — 
and although this sacrament was received by the faithful in 
both kinds in the primitive Church, etc. — the Holy Council 
decrees," etc. 

The decree of the Council of Trent is to the same effect. 

" Although in the beginning of the Christian rehgion, in 
the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the cus- 
tom of receiving in both kinds was not unfrequent, yet in pro- 
cess of time the practice being very widely changed, and 
having been so changed for wise and just causes, the Church 
has approved this custom of communicating under one kind, 
decrees by law that it shall so continue," etc. 

These two decrees are the laws that regulate this practice 
of HALF-COMMUNION in the Church of Rome. They admit 
that this practice is contrary to the original institution of 
Christ, and to the practice of the primitive Church ; they con- 
fess that " although" Jesus Christ has appointed it and the 
apostles have administered it, and the primitive Church has 
received it in one way, yet notwithstanding this, the Church 
of Rome adopts and decrees another and contrary way ! 



HALF-COMMUNION. 373 

There are very few of the more enlightened members of 
the Church of Rome who do not keenly feel this considera- 
tion, founded on the admissions of the decrees of these two 
General Councils ; they are so broad and plain an admission 
of the unscriptural and novel character of her present prac- 
tice. And when I have pressed this upon them, I have gone 
a step further. Indeed I have always been unwiUing to let 
the subject pass from me until I have added one further con- 
sideration. 

I allude to the consideration that the privileges and bless- 
ings and graces, which Jesus Christ has connected with that 
sacramental memorial of his dying love, are connected only 
^vith that which Pie has instituted and as He has appointed it. 
When, therefore, the Church of Rome has altered His insti- 
tution to which his promises are annexed, and has substituted 
another institution of her own in its stead, she has no reason 
to expect the blessings, and privileges, and graces connected 
with the sacrament of Jesus Christ. She has forfeited them 
by departure from the appointed sacrament. Instead of ad- 
ministering this sacrament, she administers only half a sacra- 
ment. Instead of receiving the communion, her members re- 
ceive only half a communion. This sacrament was origin- 
ally instituted by our Lord, in order to be the memorial of his 
dying love, to be taken in lo^dng remembrance of the break- 
ing of His body and the shedding of His blood on the cross ; 
and for the Church of Rome to take away the memorial of 
that precious blood — that blood of which we read that "it 
is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul," and " with- 
out shedding of .blood there is no remission of sins," and " we 
are redeemed — by the precious blood of Christ," and " His 
blood cleanseth from all sin," and " Thou hast redeemed us to 
God by thy blood," and " they washed their robes and made 
them white in the blood of the Lamb," and " the Church of 
God Vi^hich he hath purchased with his own blood ;" for the 
Church of Rome to withhold the memorial of this precious 
blood in that very sacrament in which Jesus Christ so especi- 
ally appointed it, is an act of impiety and sacrilege against 



374 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Christ's own institution, which has no parallel in the whole 
history of the Church, and which more than justifies the re- 
fusal of all Protestants to take part in her communion. 

This argument has vreight with those members of the 
Church of Rome who are examining the points at issue be- 
tween the Churches — searching after truth — inquiring for 
themselves, and therefore prepared simply and sincerely to ac- 
cept or reject such argument on its merits. I have never met 
one such who did not give up this practice of hale-commun- 
lON as untenable, and as one that ought never to have been 
adopted by the Church of Rome. 

But there are two classes of persons who give very difierent 
answers to the foregoing argument. There are some who are 
sincere, earnest, and candid, always prepared to ascribe due 
weight to an argument, and to acknowledge their inability to 
answer it, even though remaining unconvinced by it. There 
are others, too, who affect to see no force in any, even the 
most conclusive argument, and who endeavor to escape it by 
some subtle and unw^orthy device, miserable and weak in it- 
self, though perhaps difficult and perplexing to the inexperi- 
enced to answer. 

With the former and more candid class, it is fi'equently 
suggested that the arrangements, and forms, and ceremonies 
of the sacraments are matters for ecclesiastical regulation — 
that as the cup had been withheld for important reasons, so 
again it might be restored for important reasons — that it was 
not an article of faith that must remain unchanged and un- 
changeable forever, but only an article of discipline that might 
at any time be altered, by the restoration of the cup by the 
very same authority which withheld it. 'Not unfrequently 
such persons express regret that it ever vv^as withheld, and 
avow their wishes, that the Pope may see cause to restore it. 

I have always answered this, and arguments of the same 
nature, in one and the same way. I have answered that it 
only placed the matter in a worse position than before, because, 
if the withdrawal of the cup had been, as an article of faith, 
absolutely and unavoidably necessary, then that very necessity 



HALF-COMMUNION. 375 

would be its apology and defense, necessity is excuse sufficient. 
But when it is argued that it is merely a matter of ecclesiasti- 
cal arrangement — that it is not unalterable — that the cup can 
be restored, then it only increases the impiety and sacrilege 
of the act which is so continued against the plain words and 
example of Christ himself, of his Apostles, and of the whole 
primitive Church. 

A further argument may sometimes be urged to the effect 
that the v/ithholding the cup can not be rightly regarded as a 
matter of discipline. The commandment of Christ is clear 
and express, and his example is unquestionable. The use of 
the cup, therefore, in the sacrament is a matter of obedience 
to him. And it never was in the province of the Church, to 
set aside his commandments. We read, indeed, of some who 
" set aside the commandments of God, that they might keep 
their own traditions." But they were not the Church of 
Christ. 

The other and second class of persons in the Church of 
Rome, to whom I have referred, as always endeavoring to 
escape from an argument by some subtle and unworthy and 
miserable device, usually meet the argument in a different 
way. They first admit that our Lord administered, and 
the Apostles received the sacrament in both kinds, and then 
they add, that it was ' because the apostles were priests, and 
that it was as priests it was so administered to them, and 
thus they argue, that this original institution is no reason for 
the administration of the cup to the lay-members. 

I have given two answers to this — 

I have told my opponent, with as much courtesy as possible, 
that I felt he urged it with the hope of perplexing me, rather 
than with his own belief of its conclusiveness — that he knew 
that the practice of the Church of Rome was never to admin- 
ister the cup to either priest or layman — ^to any communicant 
whatever — that he knew that the officiating priest, as a 
part of the sacrificial ceremonial of the Mass, received the cup 
himself, but that he never administered it to any one, whether 
priest or layman ; that even at the more solemn occasions, 



376 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

when as in the High Mass, the officiating priest is assisted by 
one or two others, still even to them he does not administer 
the cup, so that if any number of priests were in attendance 
for the communion, he would not administer the cup to any."* 
This is the law of the Church of Rome. How different from 
that of Christ and His Apostles ! K this law of the Church 
of Rome had been in the mind of Christ, when He instituted 
this sacrament. He should have reserved the cup entirely to 
Himself, and not administered it at all to any of the Apostles ! 
The fact that He did administer it to them all, desiring them 
all to drink it — " drink ye all of it," and the fact that '^ they 
ALL drank it," are demonstrative against the novelty of half- 
communion in the Church of Rome. 

I have found this mode of meeting the subject have its 
effect. I have never known even an attempt to answer it. 

The other reply which I have sometimes given and which 
is well-known, is, that if our Lord did indeed administer this 
sacrament to the apostles in their character of priests, then 
the laity have nothing whatever to do with it. If it was only 
as pj'iests J , the J received the cup, and consequently they who 
are only laymen have no right to the cup, then also it was 
only as priests they received the bread, and consequently 
they, who are only laymen, have no right to the bread. And 
thus we arrive at the conclusion that the laity have no right 
to receive this sacrament at all I 

The principal argument however, upon which the members 
of the Church of Rome rest, and on which the Council of 
Trent endeavors to justify her practice, is that which is usually 
called — the argument of concomitance. This argument is, I 
believe, urged sincerely, and seems to be the great dependence 
of every class of mind among them. 

It deserves to be fairly and fully stated. 

It is founded on a belief of Ti*ansubstantiation. In that 
doctrine they teach that the bread is hterally and substantial- 
ly changed in its nature and properties into the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the wine is in like 
^ The cup is ministered to a Bishop at his consecration. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 377 

manner changed as to all its natural properties, into His blood 
and body. It is thus held that in the consecrated bread there 
is naturally and truly the blood as well as the body, and that 
in the consecrated wine, there is the body as well as the blood. 
Holding thus that both are contained in the bread, they argue 
that to receive in one kind is sufficient, inasmuch as by re- 
ceiving in either the bread or the wine, no matter which, the 
communicant receives together both the body and the blood. 
This process of reasoning is usually called — the argument of 
concomitance, and is the chief argument on which half-com- 
MUNiON is defended. 

The natural answer to this is a denial of Transubstantiation 
on which it is founded. I prefer however dealing differently 
with it ; I do not like to seem always denying their assump- 
tions, and therefore I say in reply, that it is a matter of indif- 
ference to me, so far as half-communion is concerned, wheth- 
er Transubstantiation be true or untrue. That dogma, wheth- 
er true or untrue, does not touch the real question, and I 
have therefore, for argument's sake, often admitted that doc- 
trine, and still pressed my argument against half-communion, 
as strongly as before, feeling that my argument was equally 
cogent, whether Transubstantiation was received or rejected — 
believed or denied : That my argument was, that the half-com- 
munion of the Church of Rome, was contrary to the original 
institution of our Lord — contrary to the example of our Lord 
— contrary to the plain language of Holy Scripture — contrary 
to the practice of the apostles — contrary to the custom of the 
primitive Church. This was my argument as against this 
practice of giving only the bread, without the cup ; and this 
argument stands clear and independent of any belief or disbe- 
lief of Transubstantiation ; Half-communion may be or may 
not be consistent with Transubstantiation, but certainly it is 
not consistent with the original institution of our Lord ; and 
the idea that Transubstantiation or concomitance justifies this 
Half-communion, may well lead to the inference, that neither 
Transubstantiation nor concomitance were the belief of our 
Lord, or of His apostles, or of the primitive Church, inasmuch 



3Y8 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

as tbey administered the sacrament in both kinds, as if the 
idea of Transiibstantiation or concomitance had never entered 
their minds. It may lead to all this inference, but it certainly 
does not touch my argument, which is — that this practice of 
administering in only one kind — administering only the bread 
and withholding the cup — is inconsistent with the practice of 
our Lord, of His apostles, and of the primitive Church. It 
may be consistent with Transubstantiation, but it is not con- 
sistent with the original institution of our Lord. 

To this, I have never known a reply that deserved a mo- 
ment's consideration. As long as the argument is kept to our 
Lord's original institution — and to the necessity of adhering 
to that institution — as long as the argument is kept to this, 
there can never be a reply. 

The history of this controversy supphes a new and addi- 
tional argmnent against the practice of the Church of Eome, 
and I have often used it with effect, at least I have known it 
exercise a considerable influence on some minds. Transub- 
stantiation, which had been agitated in the Church for above 
two centuries before, had been declared to be the doctrine of 
the Church of Rome for the first time at the Council of the 
Lateran in 1225. The not unnatural result of that doctrine 
was to generate very widelythe idea of the non-necessity of 
receivinof in both kinds. The doo-ma of Transubstantiation 
and the practice of half-communion went thus hand in hand ; 
mutually supporting and justifying each other. But, in the 
fourteenth century, the casual meeting of Jacobel de Mysa 
and John de Leyden led to results which then were little anti- 
cipated. These men, zealous and learned and active clergy- 
men, were devout members of the Church of Rome, and were 
earnest believes in Transubstantiation. Like most members 
of that Church, they imagined that our Lord's discourse in the 
vi. of John was designed to apply to the sacrament. In con- 
versing on that remarkable discourse, they were impressed 
with the fact that it describes the drinking of the blood as 
being as necessary as the eating of the flesh. They dwelt on 
the words, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and 



HALF-COMMUNION. 3Y9 

drinJc his hlood^ ye have no life in you ; whoso eateth my 
flesh and drinheih my hlood hath eternal life." In these 
words they observed that they could have no life unless they 
drank the blood, as well as ate the flesh. And the promise of 
life was only to those wdio drank the blood, as well as ate the 
flesh. The awful warning is against those who do not receive 
both. The gracious promise is only to those who receive both. 
Applying this language, as these men did, to the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper, they at once drew the inference that the 
cup was as necessary as the bread — that there was no promise 
to half-communion — and that in order to have eternal life they 
m.ust communicate in both kinds. In this they found con- 
firmation in the language of the Apostle, w^here he alludes to 
this sacrament. " As often as ye eat this bread and drink this 
cup^ ye do shov/ the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore 
w^hosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord 
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinh- 
eih unworthily, eateth and drinJceth damnation to himself, not 
discerning the Lord's body." — 1 Cor. xi. 26-29. 

The inference from this language is, that one kind is as es- 
sential as the other — that both are essential to the integrity 
of communion — and that whatever be the blessings, privileges 
and graces connected with this sacrament, they are connected 
w-ith it only as received in both kinds, drinking of the cup, as 
well as eating of the bread. These men, under this conviction, 
taught that it w^as necessary to salvation that all communi- 
cants should receive the bread and then receive the cup, and 
they immediately introduced into the churches at Prague the 
administration of the sacrament in both kinds. The city of 
Prague and all Bohemia soon declared in favor of the restor- 
ation of the cup. This awakened, as by an earthquake, as by 
a volcanic eruption, the whole energies and resentment of 
Rome. And the unhappy resolve of the Papal court to put 
down this beginning of the Reformation, not by the holy 
weapons of Christian argument, but by the brute force of 



380 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

arms, kindled the flames of a civil vrar of a century's continu- 
ance. It was in the midst of this controversy that the Coun- 
cil of Constance was convened — a Council celebrated for that 
decree by which it claims for the Church of Rome the right 
to go against the words of the Lord, to alter the original insti- 
tution of Christ, and to depart from the acknowledged prac- 
tice and teaching of the apostles and the primitive Church,* 
and a Council stained by treachery and blood, as having in- 
duced John Huss and Jerome of Prague, the reformers of that 
ao'e, to attend the Council on the solemn faith of a safe con- 
duct, and then ordered both to be burned at the stake. But 
" the blood of the martyrs" has ever proved " the seed of the 
Church." The people of Bohemia refused to submit to the 
decision of the Council ; frighted and indignant at the treach- 
erous burning of their leaders, they flew to arms, and never 
laid down their arms till they secured their object — the restor- 
ation of the cup in the sacrament ! To this day the Emperor 
of Austria, as kino- of Bohemia, has the rio-ht to receive the 
cup in the sacrament. 

As all these people were devout believers in Trans ubstantia- 
tion — devout believers in the notion of concomitance, it is evi- 
dent they did not regard that dogma as an adequate reason 
for the withdrawing of the cup. They felt that our Lord in- 
stituted this sacrament in both kinds — that the Apostles ad- 
ministered it in both kinds — that the primitive Church com- 

'"' The reasons assigned in the Council by sage and venerable men, 
for so strange an alteration of the institution, were surpassingly ex- 
travagant, and some of them amusing enough. One pleaded that there 
was danger of spilling the cup, and the spilling the blood of God was 
an evil of too great magnitude to be periled by restoring the cup. A 
second argued that so many persons had bad breaths, and it was shock- 
ing to persons of piety, as well as untastefal to persons of refinement, 
that such impure breaths should pollute the blood of God. Another 
pleaded, that as men then wore their beards unshaven, it was an intol- 
erable sacrilege that the blood of God should be wasted as well as de- 
filed by adhering to the beards of men. And for this and other wise 
and discreet causes, these grave and reverend fathers recommended the 
cup to be taken from all the women, who have no beards at all I 



HALF-COMMUNIOJSr. 381 

municated in both kinds — and that they received no real sac- 
rament whatever, when they received only half the sacrament. 
It was in their eyes a sacrilegious dividing of the sacrament, 
and a rendering it as useless as it w^as lifeless. 

The answer usually made to this — besides the argument of 
concomitance already noticed — is that in the Scriptue narra- 
tive we frequently read of only bread without any mention of 
the cup ; as when the two disciples were at Emmaus with our 
Lord. " He was known of them in breaking of hread^'' and 
again when the Apostle was at Troas, " upon the first day of 
the week, w^hen the disciples came together to break bread^ 
Paul preached unto them." On passages hke these, they 
argue that there is no mention of the cup, and that, therefore, 
we may suppose that the cup was not deemed an essential of 
the sacrament. 

The answer is easy. The expression of " breaking bread," 
was a common phrase expressive of any social meal, and by a 
figure usual in all languages and in all countries, a part is put 
for the whole. K among us we speak of taking dinner, it does 
not necessarily imply the absence of wine, or if we speak of 
taking tea, it is not intended to imply that there was nothing 
to eat with it. In precisely the same way the phrase of 
" breaking bread" merely implied taking a meal, and the 
Christians of the apostles' days used constantly to have a table 
in common — a table supplied by the more wealthy members, 
at which they v/itli the poorer members used to sit and eat 
together in sign of Christian love and fellowship. St. Paul 
alludes to this in 1 Cor. xi. 20, and says, " When ye come to- 
gether therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's 
supper." These meetings at one common table — these re- 
unions of holy brotherhood among the Christians — these re- 
unions for " breaking of bread" and " eating," were thus not for 
the administration of the sacrament, but for other purposes alto- 
gether ; and besides this, there is a further consideration, which 
shows that this argument is not urged sincerely by our adver- 
saries, namely that if these w^ords do indeed refer to the sac- 
rament, and if indeed it be argued that in mentioning only 



382 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

*' breaking bread," they imply tlie absence of the cup from the 
sacrament, then they will prove too much, for they will prove 
that the priest as well as the communicants had no cup, but 
only the bread — that there was only the bread and no conse- 
cration of wine, which according to the Church of Rome is 
essential to the service — so essential as that without it there is 
no sacrament and no Mass. And thus their own argument on 
the mention of bread without the mention of the cup, only 
proves against themselves, that there could have been no al- 
lusion to the sacrament in these passages. 

But now to conclude this subject. There are four distinct 
accounts of the original institution of this sacrament in the 
Holy Scriptures. In every one of these, the communicating 
in the cup is as prominent as the communicating in the 
bread. Whatever be the blessings, privileges, and graces an- 
nexed by the promises of Christ to this sacrament, belong 
to it only as he instituted it ; and when the Church of Rome 
has altered this sacrament — has disobeyed His command — 
has refused to follow His example — has renounced the prac- 
tice of the apostles, and has departed from the practice of the 
piimitive Church, she has no right to expect the blessings, and 
privileges, and graces connected with the sacrament. On 
the other hand the Protestant Churches, adhering to the very 
form as Christ instituted it ; without alteration or mutilation, 
possess the true sacrament, and enjoy not a half-communion 
merely, but a whole communion, and on the faith of the prom- 
ises of Christ, claim the blessings and privileges and graces 
belonging to it. 



I 



PURGATORY. — I. 

Scene by a Bed of Death— An awakened Romanist— A Belief in Purgatory— The 
Doctrine of the Churcli of Eome respecting Sin and Purgatory — The Blood of 
Christ the alone Mode of removing Sin — The Language of Scripture — The Eom- 
ish Distinction between the G-uilt and Punishment of Sin — ^The true Message 
of the Gospel — The inconsistency of Purgatory with Extreme Unction, 

I WAS sitting one day in the cottage of an humble and re- 
ligious man. His wife and cliildren were like himself alto- 
gether under the influence of religion. His days were now 
drawing to their close, and every thing promised a happy and a 
glorious sunset to his life. He was always a happy Christian, 
one whose thoughts as to the past were ever cheerful in the 
remembrance of mercies, and, as to the future, were invariably 
joyous in the anticipation of the promises. I was in conver- 
sation with him and his family on the subject of his approach- 
ing death, and on the way in which the sting of death was 
removed, and its fears changed to hopes, and its terrors anni- 
hilated before the realization of the promises. I had touched 
on the words of St. Paul, where he said, " I have a desire to 
depart and to be with Christ." — Phil. i. 23. And again 
where he said, " I am ready to be offered, and the time of my 
departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have 
kept the faith, I have finished my course. Henceforth there 
is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, 
the righteous judge, will give me in that day, and not to me 
only, but also to them that love his appearing." — 2 Tim. iv. 6. 
While speaking on this, many of the neighbors came in and 
sat down to hear. Among these were several members of the 
Church of Rome. 



384 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

There was soon collected a little congregation, of about 
some twenty or twenty-five persons ; and wishing to use the 
occasion, I opened my Bible and read a few verses, and spoke 
freely in connection with our previous conversation. Having 
dwelt on the happy deaths of true Christians expecting to 
pass to their rest and their glory on their departure from the 
body, a remark was made by a Roman Catholic who seemed 
very thoughtful and earnest. It was to the efiect that a man 
could not die bappy, who was expecting to be immediately 
conveyed to the fires of Purgatory. This observation attracted 
tbe marked attention of all other Roman Catholics present, and 
naturally led me to contrast the faith of the Protestant with 
the faith of the Romanist in the matter of approaching death. 
One anticipating a change from this world to the joys of Heaven, 
the other expecting a change from this life to the fires of Pur- 
gatory — one looking forward to death, as the entrance upon 
a world of happiness, and the other anticipating the moment of 
death as a plunge into all the horrors of Purgatorian fire. I 
dwelt on this contrast ; and as both Protestants and Romanists 
were present, the contrast was vivid enough in its effects on 
their countenances. I could appeal personally to both parties. 
I could appeal to their own experience and observation 
among their families and friends ; some dying happy, and re 
joicing in the hope of Heaven ; others dying fearful and anx- 
ious in the prospect of Purgatory. 

One observation led naturally to another, and the questions, 
earnestly but most respectfully put to me by the Roman 
Catholics present, led me to enlarge on the true nature of re- 
ligion, and on the comforting character of Christianity. The 
religion of revelation pours a flood of comfort around the 
couch of sickness, and spreads a beautiful halo of light around 
the bed of death. The sickness is but for a little while, and 
the death is but for a moment, and then unutterable glories 
are streaming as a shower of splendor before the eye. Death 
is swallowed up in \dctory. The grave is spoiled of its prey. 
One is but the antechamber of heaven ; the other is but the 
usher that conducts us to the presence. As he stands upon 



PURGATORY. 385 

the tliresliold of eternity, the dying Christian catches, as it 
were, brighter and happier glimpses of the glories that never 
fade. He no longer shrinks from the grave, or trembles at 
death, but, as he hears its footfall, his cheek flushes with high 
hopes ; and, as he feels its cold hand, his heart beats high 
with longings. Tor his hour has come. He sees as it were, the 
gates of heaven ; he hears, as it were, the songs of angels ; he 
feels, as it were, the balmy breezes of the skies ; and his eye 
brightens, and his cheek flushes, and his heart throbs, and his 
tongue proclaims, "I am ready to be offered, and the time of 
my departure is at hand ; I have fought a good fight, I have 
finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is 
laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, 
the righteous judge, shall give me at that day ; and not to 
me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." 
The dying Christian is the happy, the rejoicing, the triumphant 
Christian. He sees his crown ; he sees his throne ; he sees 
his inheritance ; and he pillows his head in peace, for he knows 
he will awaken on the bosom of his God ; and the last song is 
the song of triumph — ^^O death, where is thy sting? O 
grave, where is thy victory V^ But far and away from this, is 
the death of the Romanist. He sees in the grave but the 
antechamber of the fiery furnace, and sees in death but the 
usher that conducts him to a tormenting Purgatory, He lies on 
the bed of sickness ; yet that sickness is more endurable than 
the fiery furnace. He lies on the couch of agony ; yet that 
agony is more tolerable than a tormenting Purgatory. He 
has no lights of an approaching glory to illumine his darkness. 
He has no hope of an opening heaven to cheer his spirit. He 
stands shrinking, trembling, resisting, till his eye is dim, and 
his cheek is pale, and horrors upon horrors gather on his 
heart ; and he dies with thoughts of Purgatory instead of 
thoughts of Heaven, and visions of sufiering instead of visions 
of glory. The Christian dies, expecting that hour to tread 
the gates of heaven. The Romanist dies, expecting that hour 
to feel the flames of Purgatory. One dies rejoicing, the other 

17 



386 EVENINGS WITH THE KOMANISTS. 

dies lamenting. Oli ! perish the doctrine, that can thus mar 
the hopes, and blast the \dsions of the dying Christian ! 

Some time was consumed in replying to questions, some- 
times simple, sometimes subtle ; but the few and emphatic 
words of the sick man, in support of my statements of the 
glorious hopes of the Christian had a powerful eifect. They 
were few and simple, but earnest and true. We all joined to- 
gether in prayer, and I withdrew. 

A few days after this, I learned that one of the Roman Ca- 
thoHcs present on this occasion, had been affected to an unu- 
sual degree, and in an unusual manner — that his mind had been 
so disturbed and his feelings so agitated by something that had 
been said, that he could not rest that night in his bed — that 
he was in such a state that he felt obliged to rise and seek the 
open air to cool his burning head — that he spent the remain- 
der of the nio'ht sitting on the cold rocks, or walkinof disturb- 
edly on the mountain-side, where his cottage stood — that since 
then his whole thoughts seemed absorbed and lost in the one 
subject of his soul's salvation — ^that he believed himself a lost 
man, without hope and without help — and that so completely 
was he overwhelmed by these feelings, that he was unable to 
attend to his ordinary work and necessary occupation. 

I saw at once that it was necessary to see this man. It is 
true that he was a member of the Church of Rome, but it 
seemed no less true that some new and stronof conviction had 
laid hold upon his mind. I thought that there might be an 
opportunity in the then state of his feelings, of leading him to 
the real sources of peace. I sent for him. 

When he came, he looked worn and haggard — wan and 
pale. He had the appearance of wakeful nights and troubled 
days. He had evidently suffered much mentally. Whether 
it was remorse of conscience at some special sin, or a deep 
conviction of his unholy state in general, or a shrinking hor- 
ror of his expected future, it was impossible for me to say ; 
and it was some time before I could learn any thing from him. 
He was silent for a few moments after I spoke to him, but it 
was because he was unable to speak. A nervous choking 



PURGATORY. 387 

seemed to stifle his words, till a few kind and gentle expres- 
sions from me seemed to act upon liim. He burst into a flood 
of tears and wept and sobbed as a child. I could not but feel 
for the poor fellow. He was young, and in the prime of life, 
Of tall and handsome man — was married and had two children 
— had a small ^irm which he cultivated with his own hands — 
and now the strong man seemed as feeble and powerless as a 
little child. 

After he had recovered, he told me that all he had sufl'ered 
arose from what I had said on the subject of Purgatory — that 
till that evening, when he heard me speaking about death and 
the after-death, he had always believed in a Purgatory — that 
Purgatory was instituted for Catholics, and that hell was re- 
served for the Protestants — that he left the Protestants to their 
own fate, and always looked forward to Purgatory for himself; 
that he knew, and God knew, and no man knew so well as 
himself his own sins, and that he had been taught to look for- 
ward to suflfering for a time in Purgatory, till he could atone 
for all and be saved in the end. And now, said he, in a par- 
oxysm of feeling, you say there is no Purgatory ! 

The poor fellow seemed to find it difficult to convey his pre- 
cise meaning. His words seemed to imply a deep and pas- 
sionate sorrow that there was no Purgatory. He seemed to 
wish for it as a comfortable doctrine. I was obliged to ques- 
tion him as to his meaning. 

He afterward explained that he was distracted between two 
different things which I had stated — that when I had shown 
there was no Purgatory, but only Hell after death for the sin- 
ful and unrepentant, he then felt there was no hope for him — 
that he had hoped that by suffering in Purgatory, and having 
Masses and prayers said for his soul, he might in the end be 
saved : but now he could hope this no longer. There was no 
Purgatory. It was gone — gone forever ! And there was — 
now — nothino" — but Hell ! He uttered the awful words in a 
slow, solemn, low tone, that gave them an appalling signifi- 
cance. And a shudder seemed to pass over his whole frame. 



388 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

He paused and gazed as if looking intently into another 
world. 

I -then spoke very gently — I felt keenly for him — to remind 
him, that when I had told them that there were no purgatorian 
fires after death, there yet was something else infinitely more 
powerful, and infinitely more efficacious for purging away sin 
before death. 

O yes, yes, he exclaimed — the blood of Jesus — the blood of 
Jesus, " The blood of Jesus Christ His Son, cleanseth from all 
sin." Those were the very words you read from the Bible. 
They sunk into my very heart, and I remember them well. 
And this, he added, vras the second thing that was on his 
mind. You have taken away all hope, he said, by taking 
away Purgatory, and then you raised my hopes — so high ! 
— by speaking of the blood of Jesus. 

This led to a long conversation. 

In order to a full understanding of all that passed, it will be 
well to state here the doctrine of the Church of Rome, respect- 
ing Purgatory. I had spoken long to him, on the power and 
preciousness of the blood of Christ, and I have seldom, if ever, 
witnessed the message of the Gospel receive a more full and^ 
free and happy response, than seemed to come from his heart. 
He seemed at once to believe, receive, and rejoice in it, but he 
would have me go over the arguments he had before heard 
from me against the being of a Purgatory. That this may be 
the more easily understood, the following digression may be 
inserted here. 

The doctrine of the Church of Rome is, that there is a 
Heaven and a Hell — that one is for the eternal happiness of 
the saved, and the other for the everlasting misery of the lost. 
And in all this the creed of the Church of Rome is identical 
with the creed of the Church of England. But besides these, 
the Church of Rome holds that there is a third place — a place 
characterized by two properties ; one being, that it is a place 
of torment^ and the other being, that it is a place of purga- 
tion. To this place, from its supposed efficacy in purging 
away sin, they have given the appellation of Purgatory. 



PURGATORY. 889 

They describe it as a place of torment. But as to tlie na- 
ture of its torments, the advocates of the Church of Rome 
seem to be divided. The opinion generally entertained is, 
that Purgatory is a region of fire, and that the souls undergo 
all the sufferings of fire. This too is the opinion embodied in 
the Catechism of the Council of Trent. " There is," says that 
catechism, " also the fire of Purgatory, in which the souls 
of the just are purified by punishment /or a stated time^ to the 
end that they may be admitted into their eternal country, into 
which nothing that defileth, entereth." — Part i. c. 6. But 
some of the more modern advocates of that Church, feeling 
themselves hard pressed by our objections, have asserted that 
it is not quite certain — ^that it is not infallibly settled — that 
Purgatory is a region of fire. Some maintain that it is a fiery 
region, where the soul is tormented with fire ; others, that it 
is a region without fire, where the soul is tormented with hor- 
rible dread. Both parties agree, however, that it is a region 
of sufiering alm^ost as horrible as Hell ; the chief distinction 
being, that Purgatory was but temporary, while Hell was 
eternal. 

They describe it as a place of purgation. To this place are 
consigned tv^o classes of persons. 1. Ail who die under venial 
sins ; that is, all who have not confessed and done penance 
for their venial sins. These persons are consigned to this 
place to undergo the measure of punishment due to such sins. 
2. All w^ho have committed mortal sins, and have confessed 
them, but have not performed all the enjoined penance. 
These persons are consigned to this place of torment, to un- 
dergo v/hat remains of the punishment supposed to be due to 
such sins. Both these classes are supposed to settle the bal- 
ance due upon their account, in the sufiering of Purgatory. 

The principle or doctrine, upon which these opinions are 
founded is this : They hold that there are tvv^o classes of sins. 
1. Venial sins. These are supposed to be sins that are little 
sins — trivial sins ; such as little lies and petty thefts. They 
are called venial, that is pardonable, as being too trivial to 
alienate the love of God, or, as they express it, to " break 



390 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

charity;" and wliicli therefore God may very well pardon, 
without any great stretch of His mercy, provided the sinner 
undergoes a suitable penance here or hereafter. 2. Mortal 
sins. These are supposed to be great sins — sins so great, as 
deservedly to damn the soul in hell ; and if not confessed, 
absolved and satisfied for by penance in this world, assuredly 
to be followed by damnation in the world to come. 

It is no part of my present object, to examine or expose the 
tendency of this most unscriptural doctrine of mortal and venial 
sin, though it lies at the root of one half the practical errors 
of the Church of Rome. My present object is to state what 
the principle and doctrine is, upon which the theory of Pur- 
gatory is founded. They hold respecting these two classes of 
sinners — they hold, respecting all sin, that if confessed it may 
be satisfied for by " temporal punishment " here or hereafter. 
Instead of regarding the punishment of the repentant sinner, 
as being laid by faith on Jesus Christ, according to the words 
of the prophet — " He was wounded for our transgressions, He 
was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace 
was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed." — Isaiah 
liii. 5. — ^instead of thus resrardino- the sufi'erinfxs of the believer 
as borne for him by Jesus Christ, when He endured the agony 
in the garden, and the sufierings in the judgment-hall, and 
the death on the cross — instead of this, they hold that the 
believer, however repentant of his sins, must undergo the " tem- 
poral punishment" himself^ which is to satisfy for his sins. 
That " temporal punishment " is explained of the sufiering of 
the body in penance in this life, or the sufiering of the soul 
in the pains of Purgatory in the life to come. Those persons, 
therefore, who are guilty of mortal sins, which have been con- 
fessed, but which have not been satisfied for by penance, and 
those persons who are guilty of venial sins, whether confessed 
or not, are alike consigned to Purgatory, in order that by 
their suffering there they may satisfy for their sins. 

It will at once be seen, that by an ing-enious complication 
of the subject, a subtle advocate of the Church of Rome may 
perplex an unwary opponent. But still, the result that should 



PURGATORY. 391 

remain on the mind should be, that — excepting those who are 
doomed to hell, all others must pass through the sufferings of 
Purgatory, until they have balanced their account of suffer- 
ings. These persons are supposed to be in communion with 
the Church of Rome. The region of Purgatory is their 
special domain ; while the members of the Protestant Church 
are carefully excluded. A Romanist indeed may enter there, 
but the destiny of the Protestant has been somewhat pro- 
fanely described, as that of men who must "go further and 
fare w^orse." 

Thus much being premised, our conversation will be more 
intelligible. 

I reminded him of the truth that had already so strongly 
affected him ; namely, that the blood of Jesus Christ was the 
true means of atonement for the sinner. I read the words, 
" Behold the Lamb of God that taJceth away the sins of the 
worldll'' and again, "The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, 
cleanseth from all sinr And I observed that if Christ has 
taken away the sins of his people there can be no need of a 
Purgatory to take them away again, and that if the blood of 
Christ cleanseth from all sin, emphasizing the v/ords " all sin,'' 
there can be no sin, venial or otherwise, remaining to be chased 
away by the fires of Purgatory. 

He at once exclaimed, that the two things were inconsistent. 
They could not both be true. And he added, earnestly, that 
his hope must be in the blood of Jesus Christ — ^Blessed be 
His holy name ! 

I said that he was right, but that he might see how full and 
clear the Word of God was on the subject, I would read some 
other passages that showed that Christ and only Christ, by 
His blood, took away our sins. I then continued, we read 
that " We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness 
of sins." — Eph. i. Y. We read of Him as " having forgiven 
all trespasses, blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that 
was against us." — Col. ii. 14. We read, "Every branch that 
beareth fruit. He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more 
fruit." — John xv. 2. We read, " How much more shall the 



392 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Him- 
self without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead 
v/orks to serve the hving God V — Heb. ix. 14. We read, '' He 
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
from all unricrhteousness." — 1 John i. 9. We read of those in 
glory, as those who have " ivashed their robes and made them 
white in the blood of the Lamb." — Rom. vii. 14. Here, and 
in innumerable places of Holy Scripture we read that the 
purging away of sin — the purgation of the soul from sin, is 
the special result of the blood of Jesus Christ. It is described 
in those places as a " forgiveness," as a " blotting out," as a 
" purging," as a " cleansing," and as a " washing away of sin." 
There is no reference whatever to any other method of purg- 
ing away sin, but the blood of Jesus Christ. And the power 
of that blood — in other words, the efficacy of the atonement 
on the cross, is described as extending to " all trespasses," and 
" all sins," and " all unrighteousness," and therefore, as extend- 
ing not only to mortal, but also to venial sins. So when once 
the believer is cleansed, purged, washed, forgiven by Jesus 
Christ, there can remain nothing on the soul to be cleansed, 
purged, washed, or forgiven through the fires of Purgatory. 
To suppose with the Church of Eome, that something remains 
to be purged away in the fires of Purgatory, is practically to 
impeach the blood of Christ ; for it is all one with supposing 
that all the sin was not purged away by the blood of Christ ; 
it is all one with supposing that the blood of Christ was not 
in itself sufficient in value or in power ; it is all one with sup- 
posing that the blood of Christ had done the work by halves, 
and was not adequate to do the whole, but required the help 
of Purgatory to complete it ; it is all one with supposing that 
Purgatory is capable of perfecting that which Christ could not 
perfect, and therefore is more efficacious than the blood of 
Christ ! 

It will easily be believed that my companion entered most 
fully into this process of reasoning. He seemed to have re- 
ceived into his whole soul the truth of a perfect and complete 
atonement and forgiveness in the sacrifice of Christ. And as 



PURGATORY. 393 

verse after verse v/as read, Lis eyes would brighten, and his 
cheek glow, and his countenance smile, while his exclama- 
tions, at one time " the precious — precious blood I" at an- 
other, " the words are sweeter than music," and again, " that 
is the blessed — blessed truth," — all showed that the Holy 
Scriptures were doing their destined work. 

After a time he told me that he had always been taught 
— adding that it was in the catechism — that when the Scrip- 
tures said that the Blessed Lord took away sin and forgave 
sin, it only meant that He took away or forgave the guilt 
of sin, but that He never took av/ay the punishment of sin. 
And thus, he added, the Church of Eome teaches us that al- 
though we have in Jesus the forgiveness of the guilt of our 
sins, yet we have not the forgiveness of the punishment that 
is due to our sins. And that thus, while Jesus takes away the 
guilty it is Purgatory, and penance, and absolution, and the 
like, that take away the punishment, 

I replied to this, by saying, that there was no ground for 
this in Holy Scripture, nor indeed, I added, in common sense. 
If true, it would mar the v»bole Gospel ; for that which a sin- 
ner fears is the punishment of his sins, and the Gospel would 
cease to be a Gospel, if it did not bring the glad tidings of 
salvation from the punishment, as well as from the practice 
and the guilt of sins. But what is the distinction between 
the guilt and the punishment of sin ? We shall understand 
this better by supposing a case. AVe suppose a traitor has 
plotted treason against the sovereign ; his guilt is proved, and 
the verdict given ; his sentence is pronounced, and he is 
doomed to die a traitor's death. We further suppose the sov- 
ereign holds the prerogative of mercy, and declares the paixlon, 
the free pardon of the traitor. The traitor relents, his heart 
is filled with gratitude, his eye is flooded with tears of joy, his 
pardon is sealed, and he expects his liberty and his hfe. But, 
when expecting freedom, he finds his chains more closely 
riveted than before; when expecting life, he finds himself 
brought to the scaffold, and the executioner is there, and the 
ax is there, and the parade of a traitor's death is there. He 

17* 



394 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

demands the freedom and the life his sovereign's pardon 
had given him. He is answered, that the sovereign remitted 
the guilt of his treason^ but did not remit the punishment of 
his treason ! Would not the fated man cry out upon such a 
mockery as this ? Would not his severed head find a voice 
— would not his headless body find a tongue — would not 
every thing within him cry out in burning reclamation 
against such a mockery of pardon ? And yet this spectral 
shadow of pardon — this unreal fiction and pretense of a par- 
don — this cruel mockery is ascribed by the Church of Rome 
to Jesus Chi-ist ; instead of that full and free forgiveness — for- 
giveness full as the weaves of the ocean and free as the winds 
of heaven, which He has purchased in His blood. " I have 
blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and as a cloud 
thy sins." — Isaiah xliv. 22. " He will subdue om' iniquities, 
and Thou wait cast all our sins into the depths of the sea." — 
Mic. vii. 19. "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and 
their sins and iniquities I will remember no more." — Heb. vi. 
12. This is the forgiveness of Heaven. It remits the guilt, 
it remits the penalty, it annihilates the sin ; and any thing 
short of this, any remitting of the guilty while there w^as a 
retaining of the punishment^ would be as useless and as cruel 
a mockery of the sinner as it would be unworthy of Him who 
is the Prince of the kings of the earth. 

But, I continued, w^e have not done with this doctrine. 
There is no truth in the whole of Revelation more certain 
than that the sufferings of Jesus Christ are accepted instead 
of the sufferings that w^e deserved. He was foreshadowed 
in all the types of the law, where the sacrificial victim was 
brought to the altar instead of the transgressor. The victim 
was accepted in the stead of the transgressor, the victim was 
slain in the stead of the transgressor, the blood of the victim 
was accepted for the blood of the transgressor, the death 
of the victim for the death of the transgressor ; the throes, 
the struggles, the sufferings of the victim were accepted for 
the throes, the struggles, the sufferings of the transgressor. 
The whole ceremonial represented a vicarious atonement. 



PURGATORY. 395 

The law demanded the suffering of the transgressor, but the 
law was satisfied to accept the suffering of the sacrificial 
victim in his stead. This was the type of Him who is our 
sacrificial Victim, " the Lamb of God that taketh away the 
sin of the world." He has been our sacrificial victim ; His 
suffering, His blood, His death, has been accepted as a vicari- 
ous atonement for our suffering and blood and death. It is, 
therefore, the j^rophet says, " Surely He hath borne our griefs 
and earned our sorrows ; yet we did esteem Him stricken, 
smitten of God and afiiicted. But He was wounded for our 
transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastise- 
ment of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are 
healed. All we like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned 
every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid upon Him 
the iniquity of us all." — Isa. liii. 4-6. This is the Gospel. 
And this it is, that, while it comforts and encourages the 
believer, confounds that fiction which would teach us that 
Jesus Christ remits the guilt without remitting the punishment 
of sin. 

In all my experience, I have seldom, if ever, seen a more 
marked or emphatic reception of this cardinal feature of the 
Gospel. It seemed as if the poor fellow had been gazing upon 
the sun in its brightness, and his eye was so dazzled and filled 
with its glories, that even v/hen he looked away, it seemed to 
be seen in every thing. The several passages of Scripture 
were like fresh rays of clear and beautiful light streaming 
in upon the vision. He seemed as if he could never be weary 
of taking them in, and he made me repeat them again and 
again, and said he could no longer doubt, but believe, that the 
death of Christ on the cross was suflScient for all sins, mortal 
and venial, and for both the guilt and the punishment of sin. 
If Jesus on the cross has borne our sufferings, surely we shall 
not have to bear them again. 



PURGATORY. — II. 

A Conversation to redairn a Convert — The Interval between Death and the Judg- 
ment — The Question as to the Abode of the Dead during that Interval — Tho 
Middle Eegion of Purgatory — Scripture reveals only Heaven and Hell — One 
Mode of solving this Qaestion as to the Eighteous Dead — The non-necessity of 
the Middle State admitted by the Church of Rome — The Scapularians — Another 
Solution as to the Ungodly Dead — Five Eegions in Purgatory. 

I have already narrated a conversation on tlio subject of Pur- 
gatory, with a young man, who was very much in earnest. 
His earnestness led him at once to abandon the Church of 
Rome. He became a frequent attendant of our cottage-lec- 
tures, and a regular worshiper at our parish church. 

A great effort was to be made to reclaim him. Every thing 
w^as done and said by friends and neighbors and priests to 
bring him back to the Church of Rome. He stood firm ; and 
often, when he was unable to answer their arguments, he used 
to take his stand on some great and broad truth of the Gospel, 
and bring the argument to this, as to a test. He explained it 
to me thus. When they argued for some penance or mortifi- 
cation, and he could not answer as he wished, he called to 
mind how Christ had endured every thing for him ; — when 
they argued for the sacrifice of the Mass, and he could not. 
confute them as he could wish, he called to mind that the 
death of Christ was the only true sacrifice ; when they argued 
for praying to the Virgin, and he could not answer them as 
was desirable, he called to mind that Christ was the one 
Mediator between God and man — and thus, as he told me, 
he was enabled to fortify his own mind, and repel every 
argument, even when he could not answer it. He said he 
felt that their arguments were wrong — that their doctrines 
were wrong — that their practices were wrong — he felt, al- 



PURGATORY. 397 

though very often he was unable to prove, that they were 
wrong. 

He stated to me one day that he had been much perplexed 
with one argument which he could not answer. They had 
asked him — where are the souls of the dead between the 
day of death and the day of judgment? They had said 
that they must be in a third place, which was Purgatory. He 
felt they were wTong, but he could not answer them. And 
he stated that a lar^-e number of his friends and neio^hbors 
proposed coming to me to argue it with me in his presence, 
for they thought they could convince him thus fully, by my 
inability to solve the difficulty. 

It was soon arranged that they should come to me at my 
next cottage lecture. 

The attendance was very large, as was usual when any 
thing particular w^as expected. The majority w^ere Roman 
Cathohcs. A small knot or party of these sat together in 
a corner, and seemed under the leadership of a little man 
whom I well knew^ as a controversialist of a very sharp and 
bitter kind. He was clever ; and the confidence of his man- 
ner seemed to have an influence over a certain class of the 
peasantry. I had frequently met him before — had argued 
with him — and soon found, that if I led him out of the beaten 
track, out of the common arguments on any point, he was 
perfectly powerless. He was not a pious man, though a great 
and warm advocate for the Church of Rome : being in reality 
more fond of politics than of religion. 

When I had concluded my lecture, I said, that I under- 
stood that some of the Roman Catholic neighbors wished to 
ask me some questions about Purgatory, and that I wished to 
give them the opportunity. I would therefore say, that one 
objection we entertained against that doctrine is, that it is not 
revealed in Holy Scripture. We read there of a Heaven. 
We read of a Hell. But we 7iever read there of a Purga- 
tory. It is scarcely possible, I said, to open the Holy Scriptures 
without finding some allusion either to the Heaven of the 
saved, or the Hell of the lost. Our Lord has liimself frequent' 



898 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ly alluded to the world beyond the grave, and he always re- 
fers to Heaven or to Hell, and describes the one as " eternal 
life," and the other as " everlasting punishment." He makes 
no mention whatever of a Purgatory, precisely as if there was 
no such place in existence. Our Lord says not a word respect- 
ing it. The Holy Scriptures reveal nothing about it ; whether 
we read the writings of the prophets — the books of the evan- 
gelists — the epistles of the Apostles — the discourses of our 
Lord — or the preaching of the Apostles, or the visions of 
Revelation, while we find repeated mention of Heaven and 
of Hell, we have no allusion whatever to Purgatory. The 
whole volume assumes the existence of these two regions ; 
but so far as Purgatory is concerned, the Holy Scriptures 
are as silent as if it never existed — as if the sacred writers 
had never heard of it. 

Our little friend here said that he acknowledged that the 
Holy Scriptures often mentioned both Heaven and Hell, and 
that they never mentioned Purgatory by name. But, he said, 
looking about with confidence, although they do not mention 
Purgatory by name, they have the thing itself. And it is of 
no consequence about the name, if the thing itself is there. 
JS^ow, to show that the thing itself is there, he would appeal to 
mj^self whether there was not another place — a third place for 
the souls of the dead ? He would ask me or any Protestant 
in the world — Where were the souls of the dead between the 
day of their death and the day of judgment ? They were not 
in Heaven, and they were not in Hell. Where were they — 
unless in a third place, which the Catholic Church calls 
Purgatory ? 

This question was proposed in a manner that showed that 
he felt the diflSculty in his ovm mind. And it was apparent, 
from the manner in which it was received, that a clear answer 
was very necessary. I, therefore, begun by sapng, that, even 
if there was a third region, it would not prove that that region 
was a Purgatory. Our objection went, not so much against a 
third place, as against a purging place — a place supplying 
another means of purging away sin beside the blood of Christ. 



PURGATORY. 399 

This is our real objection. He at once acknowledged the 
difference. 

I then said that there were two ways of dealing with it. 
And I asked his careful attention. 

I. I have first to ask you, I said, or any Roman Catholic 
present, where are the souls of the Virgin Mary — of the 
Apostles and all the saints, from the day of their death to their 
resurrection ? The Pope is constantly canonizing new saints. 
Where are the souls of St. Dominic and St. Francis — of St. 
Cecilia and St. Catharine, and of the long catalogue of saints 
in the Litany? Their bodies are all in their graves; but 
where are their souls ? Where are they ? 

He said, he supposed they w^ere in heaven. 

I then added, asking, whether it was not true, that in the 
Church of Rome they confess to " all the saints," — they pray 
to " all the saints," as if they were in heaven, in the presence 
of God, and therefore able to intercede and mediate for them. 
I ask, therefore, as their bodies are in their graves on earth, 
where are their souls between their death and the day of 
judgment ? 

He said again, that the Church taught that they were in 
heaven. 

I replied at once that this proved, on their own showing, 
that the souls of God's saints, Go'd's holy children, can be 
removed at once to heaven, while their bodies are in their 
graves, waiting their resurrection. And all His believing 
people are His saints or holy ones, loved by Him, redeemed 
by Christ and sanctified by His Spirit ; so their souls may be 
translated at once to heaven. There is no necessity for their 
stopping in some middle or third region. They are at once 
translated, like the Virgin Mary, like the apostles, like all the 
other saints, to heaven, and there they enjoy as much hap- 
piness as disembodied spirits are capable of enjoying. 

The ^effect of this was unmistakable. Natural and simple 
as it was, it told with wonderful effect. It seemed to pour a 
new light into the minds of the hearers. They looked one at 
another. The Protestants seemed extremely amused, A por- 



400 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

tion of the Roman Catholics seemed to feel it decisive, arguing 
that the saints, when the Pope canonized them, must be in 
heaven, or they could not help us ; and others evidently were 
hopelessly perplexed. The little leader himself seemed puzzled, 
and unable to say a word. I therefore continued to say that — 

The souls of God's children, or saints, or believei's, as 
they were variously called in Holy Scripture, were translated 
to heaven, and there enjoyed as much happiness as disem- 
bodied spirits were capable of enjoying. There the souls 
remained till the resurrection of the great day, when there 
will be the reunion of the soul and body, and the fullness of 
happiness is consummated ; and on the other hand, the souls of 
the unrighteous are transferred to hell, and there they endure 
as much misery as disembodied spirits are capable of enduring, 
until, by the resurrection at the day of judgment, the reunion 
of soul and body shall capacitate them for all the fullness of 
their destined miseries. 

This is the answer I have usually given to the question, 
saying that the souls of the righteous, of the redeemed are 
there in heaven, where the Romanists themselves say that the 
souls of the saints reside. On their own showing, there is no 
necessity for a middle or third region. And undoubtedly 
there is much in the language of the Holy Scriptures to justify 
this answer. It is said of the righteous in his death, that 
" the righteous is taken away from the evil to come ; he shall 
enter into peace ; they shall rest in their beds, each one walk- 
ing in his uprightness." — Isaiah, Ivii. 2. Again : " We are 
always confident, knowing that, while we are at home in the 
body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, 
not by sight) : we are confident, I say, and willing rather to 
be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." — 
2 Cor. V. 6-8. And again : " For me to live is Christ, and to 
die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my 
labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I ap in a 
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with 
Christ, which is far better." — Phil. i. 21-23. 

And again : "Here is the patience of the saints : here are 



I 



PURGATORY. 401 

they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of 
Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, 
Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence- 
forth : Yea, saith the Spirit, that thej may rest from their 
labors: and their works do follow them." — Rev. xivt 12, 13. 
These Scriptures, beyond all doubt or question, imply a stato 
of happiness or blessedness as immediately consequent upon 
the death of the righteous. They imply that the death of the 
righteous conducts him to peace and rest — and this is not 
Purgatory ; that it conducts him into the presence of Christ — 
and this is not Purgatory ; that it conducts him into a state 
better or happier than this life — and this is not Purgatory ; 
that it conducts him to such a state, that it is more desirable 
to depart than to remain — and this can not be Purgatory ; and 
yet further, we read the words of the Redeemer on the cross 
to the repentant thief, " This day shalt thou be with me in 
paradise." — Matt, xxiii. 43 — and this can not be Purgatory, 
for it is expressly described as the inheritance of the righteous, 
and the place ^vhere is the tree of life. — Rev. ii. 7. All these 
and countless parallel Scriptures seem to imply that when the 
righteous die, their souls are taken to their rest, and are in the 
presence of their Sa\aour and their God, and enjoy all the 
happiness of which disembodied spirits are capable, till the re- 
surrection of the last day, when body and soul united shall 
enter on the full fruition of their destiny of glory. Further 
than this, I added, the Holy Scriptures do not assert, and 
therefore, further than this, we ought not to question. 

I then asked him whether he was not a Carmelite or Scap- 
ularian, and whether there w^ere not others present who be- 
longed to the same religious confraternity ? 

Several voices responded in the affirmative. 

I then opened a little volume which is much circulated 
among the members of the order ; and which contains the 
privileges and the indulgences belonging to the members. I 
read the following passage : 

" John XXIL, Sovereign Pontiff, found himself greatly har- 
assed by a schism which the Emperor Louis IV. wished to 



402 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

raise in the Church. Once haymg risen early, according to 
his custom, to pray, and kneeling devoutly, his mind being 
some%yhat elevated, there appeared to him the glorious Queen 
of Heaven. She kindly consoled him and promised him 
her protection and assistance against his enemy, enjoining on 
him besides, that he should favor, confirm, give efficacy to 
what she, the Mother of God, had obtained in heaven from 
her divine Son, Jesus Christ ; that he should publish to all the 
faithful the precious treasure of the Indulgences of the sacred 
Scapular. And that she herself, as a most loving Mother, 
would go down into Purgator}- every Saturday to free such 
saints as she should find there, to carry her holy habit, sub- 
joining thereto the obligations which those would be obhged 
to perform who should wear it, to merit so great and so singu- 
lar a pri\dlege. The whole is minutely related and confirmed 
by John XXII. in a Bull. In this Bull the following v>'ords 
spoken by the Virgin Mary to the Pontiff occur. From the 
day that they, ^. e., the Fathers and Brothers of the Order of 
Mount Carmel, depart from this world and pass into Purga- 
toiy, /, their Mother^ will graciously descend on the Saturda?/ 
next after their death, and I will free every one icho I shall 
find in Purgatory, and I will conduct them to the holy Mount 
of Eternal LifeP^ 

The readino* of all this caused varied feelino;s amon^r my 
hearers : some of them laughed, while others, who belonged 
to the confraternity, exclaimed that it was all as I had read 
it — ^that it was in their own books, but they seemed not to 
divine my object in the citation. 

It is a pity, said one of them in an under-voice that savored 

"*" This Order of Carmelites, or Scapularians, is very numerous in Ire- 
land, embracing all the more religious members of the Church of Rome, 
among the lower classes. The book from which the foregoing is ex- 
tracted, was printed in Dubhn for the use of the Order in 1826, and 
purchased by myself at their office. I also have since then purchased 
it in French, published in Paris, and in 18-41 it was published in 
Italian at Eome. I purchased it there in 184=5. — A volume so widely 
published has some importance. 



PURGATORY. 403 

of the comic — It is a pity to die on any day, barring Friday 
night, if the Blessed Virgin takes us out on Saturday. 

The tone of his voice, and the manner of the man, had its 
natural effect on a people so susceptible of the ludicrous, and a 
whole volley of odd things were said, that could only be said 
in an assembly of Irish peasants. 

When I succeeded in quieting them, I asked, whether this 
belief of the Carmelites or Scapularians did not imply that the 
members of the order left Purgatory for Heaven, for " eternal 
joy in paradise," as is said in one place, and for " the holy 
Mount of Eternal life," as is stated in another, and whether 
this did not prove that their souls can go to heaven before the 
day of judgment ? 

This process of reasoning, though perhaps unsatisfactory to 
some minds, was all-powerful among our hearers on this occa- 
sion. Our little friend who was to lead the opposition was 
himself a Carmelite, and wore the Scapular, and he fell mar- 
velously in the estimation of his supporters. 

He was perfectly perplexed. K I had gone on arguing 
with him in the usual way, he would have proceeded with the 
usual answer, as contained in their controversial books. But 
here, having admitted that all the Saints were in Heaven, and 
that the Carmelites and Scapularians would jDroceed to 
Heaven before the day of judgment ; his argument failed, on 
his own showing, as to the necessity of a third or middle 
state. I felt that this was the moment for another mode of 
dealing with the subject — one that I have seldom found to fail 
among Roman Catholics. 

II. I addressed the little leader of the party gently, and said 
that as he had asked me where were the souls of the dead be- 
tween their death and the day of judgment, and as I had an- 
swered him to the best of my power, so now I thought that I 
might ask him the very same question — Where are the souls 
of the righteous between their death and the day of judg- 
ment ? 

The whole of our hearers declared that this was fair — that 
he must answer me. 



404 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

He answered without hesitation — in a third place — Pur- 
gatory. 

But, said I, my question refers to the interval between their 
release from Purgatory and the day of judgment. Where are 
they after their release from the third place — after their re- 
lease from Purgatory ? In the Catechism of the Council of 
Trent, it is said that they remain in Purgatory only a " stated 
time." And my question is, as to where they are after that 
stated time is completed ? 

There was no answer ; and the silence had more effect on 
my hearers than any eloquence. 

I then reminded them that they offer ma^es to relieve the 
souls in Purgatory — that they purchase masses, and give en- 
dowments, and make bequests to release the souls from Pur- 
gatory — that convents and friaries and monasteries and 
churches and cathedrals have been founded and endowed in 
order to have masses offered to release the souls in Purgatory 
— that Purgatorian societies are very extensively established, 
through which, on the payment of certain subscriptions, the 
souls of friends and relatives are released by masses from Pur- 
gatory. jN'ow we ask — what becomes of those souls, for which 
all these masses are offered, and by which they are released 
from Purgatory — what becomes of them, and where are they 
from the day of their release to the day of judgment ? If they 
are still in this third place called Purgatory, after all the 
money that has been paid, then are the monks and friars and 
priests of Rome, the worst defrauders the world has ever seen ; 
for as defrauding is described as raising money under false 
pretenses, these men raise money in order by masses to release 
the souls from Purgatory, whereas, according to this, they are 
never released at all ! But, if they are released from Purga- 
tory, then, I ask, where are they from the day of their release 
to the day of judgment ? 

I have often seen my opponents amusingly perplexed by 
this inquiry. They said at first, that the souls were removed 
to heaven. And when I reminded them of their previous 
argument, that souls could not enter heaven till after the day 



PURGATORY. 405 

of judgment, they retraced their steps, and told me that these 
souls were in another region, not of suffering like Purgatory, 
nor glorious like heaven — a fourth place ! 

And thus the difficulty involved in their question to us, en- 
tangled themselves far more, for they were obliged to admit, 
that during the interval they are in some other region — some 
fourth region — which is not Purgatory, but in which they live 
in all the happiness of disembodied spirits. 

But I have further asked — where are the souls of the 
wicked, according to their principles, during the interval be- 
tween the death and the judgment ? There is no Purgatory 
for them ; and therefore I asked — where are they during this 
interval 1 I have asked this question a hundred times of the 
advocates of the Church of Eome, and I never yet could ob- 
tain an answer. They will not say that they are transferred 
immediately to hell, w^ithout waiting for the resurrection-day ; 
for that would supply us with an argument from analogy, to 
prove the righteous are in like manner translated imme- 
diately to heaven, without waiting for the resurrection-mom. 
They will not say that they are in Purgatory ; for that would 
imply that the damned are undergoing a purgation for 
Heaven, and would finally be saved. And if they are neither 
in Purgatory nor in Hell, where are they ? So that, in what- 
ever light we view this question — where are the souls of the 
dead during the interval between the day of death and the 
day of judgment ? it is certain, that however they had hoped 
by it to have entangled us, it has entangled themselves in ten- 
fold more inextricable difficulties. If it compels us to suppose 
(as it does not), in addition to Heaven and Hell, the existence 
of a third region as a receptacle of the soul from the day of 
death to the day of judgment, it will compel them to suppose 
a fourth region as a receptacle of the souls of the righteous 
from the day of their release from Purgatory to the day of 
judgment ; and additionally to this, a fifth region as a recep- 
tacle of the wicked fi-om the day of death to the day of 
judgment ! 

In the present conversation, I took care to lead to this, 



406 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

with tlie view of setting it before the Roman Catholics pres- 
ent. After therefore I had asked — Where are the souls of the 
wicked between their death and the day of judgment ? and 
received no reply, I said, that on his own showing, there 
must be not only a middle or third place, but seven places. 

1. I asked him whether, in the Church of Rome, they did 
not believe in a Purgatory, where the souls of the righteous 
depart for their purification ? This is one region. 

2. Again, I asked whether they do not suppose there is 
then a place where the souls of the righteous depart after the 
Masses have released them from Purgatory, and where they 
remain till the day of judgment ? This is the second region, 
vMy opponent at once assented to this. 

3. I then asked whether they do not suppose there is 
next a heaven, whereunto the souls of the righteous enter on 
the judgment-day ? This is the thii^d region. They assented 
to this also. 

4. Again, I asked whether they do not further suppose that 
there is a place for the souls of the wicked, where they re- 
main from the day of death to the day of judgment, different 
from the Purgatory of the righteous. This is the fourth 
place. This was assented to. 

5. And lastly, I have asked whether they do not then sup- 
pose there is a Hell, where the wicked are cast after the judg- 
ment of the last day. There is the ffth region. This was 
at once acknowledged. 

It thus appears, I concluded, that on the principles of the 
Church of Rome there must not only be three, but five re- 
gions in the spiritual world, and that, where they had hoped 
to entangle me they were inextricably entangled themselves ; 
and besides these, the catechism of the Council of Trent de- 
scribes two other places, under the names of Limhus Patrum^ 
where rested the souls of the Old Testament worthies, and of 
Limhus Infantum^ where rest the souls of little children. We, 
I added, on our principles, can at once cut the Gordian knot, 
for we hold that the souls of the righteous are in Heaven, 
enjoying there all the happiness of which such disembodied 



PURGATORY. 407 

spirits are capable, and waiting there for re-imion witli their 
glorified bodies, in order to obtain a capacity for all the flood 
of glory that awaits them ; and we hold, on the other hand, 
that the souls of the wicked are in Hell, as was said of Dives 
in the parable, " in Hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tor- 
ment," suffering there all that disembodied spirits are capable 
of, and are reserved there for re-union with their resurrection 
bodies, in order to the endurance of their destiny of woe. 

While stating this argument, especially v/hen specifying 
the several regions — the seven regions instead of Heaven and 
Hell — there was a play of countenance among the Protestants 
present, which showed a lively sense of the ludicrous. They 
felt that the tables were completely turned on our little friend, 
and that where he thought to have puzzled me by his favor- 
ite questions, he was himself inextricably perplexed. The 
feeling among the Roman Catholics was of more importance 
— it was a varied one. But I believe that it was universally 
thought that it had been far better for his cause that our 
little friend had never asked his question. Among some of 
them, there was great thoughtfulness and gravity. Among 
others, there was an appearance of bitterness and disappoint- 
ment ; while the keen sense of the ludicrous, so characteristic 
of the peasantry, found vent in some pleasant sallies at his ex- 
pense. 

I saw that my object was well-nigh gained, as much so as 
I could have anticipated ; — that the partisans of the Church 
of Rome were silenced, if not convinced ; — and I resolved to 
improve the occasion by a more useful and profitable mode of 
dealing with the subject. I therefore changed my manner — 
asked their serious and calm attention, and then went over the 
process of argument given in a former conversation, setting 
forth the power of the blood of Christ for the remission of all 
our sins, and showing from the Holy Scriptures, that His 
sufferings and death were the atoning sacrifice for all who 
believed : and that, therefore, there was no need of the fire of 
Purgatory. This gave me an opportunity of setting forth the 
great truths of the Gospel ; and I am bound to say that the 



408 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Roman Catholics present listened with reverent attention to 
those glorious truths. I could not have desired a more atten- 
tive or absorbed congregation. And some there were, who 
seemed at the time completely melted and subdued under the 
love of Christ. 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 



The Ideal of the Church of Christ— Of the Church of Eoroe— The twofold Vicariate 
temporal over nations, and spiritual over Churches— Her Claim as Mother and 
Mistress of ail Churches— Untrue as a Matter of Fact— Whether St. Peter or 
Christ be the Eock — Matthew xvi. 13 — How this concerns the Eoman Church — 
Whether St. Peter was Bishop of Eome — Whether any Supremacy is secured by 
this to the Eoman Church — Whether St. Peter alone was to feed the Flock — 
John xxi. 15 — The true Head of the Church is Christ — Whether He needs a Vi- 
car on Earth. 



The ideal of the Church of Christ is grand and magnificent. 
It is this ; — that the Lord Jesus Christ has passed away into 
heaven ; — that having ascended into heaven He is there en- 
throned, first as the King of kings, and so possessing all 
authority over and above all the kingdoms of earth ; and then, 
as the High Priest of His Church, and so invested with 
authority over all Churches upon earth ; — that, in keeping 
with both these prerogatives, it was prophesied that the king- 
doms of the earth should become the kingdoms of the Lord, 
and that all people should come and worship before him ; — 
and that the Lord Jesus Christ in the heavens is thus the 
King of kings and the High Priest — the King-Priest of the 
world. 

Li all this part of the ideal the Protestant Christian and the 
Roman Catholic are in accord. It is at the next stage or 
platform of the splendid edifice that we separate. 

The Romanists, in their ideal of the Church, hold that our 
Lord being in heaven, requires a Deputy or Vicar to represent 
him, and bear His oJB5ce on earth ; and that He has appointed 
the Bishop of Rome as His Vicar. It is apparent that, as 
such, the Vicariate represents not only His oflSce as High 

18 



L 



410 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Priest^ but His office as King of Icings — liot only the spiritijicd 
authority over the Churchy but the temporal authority over 
the kingdoms of the earth. 

This is the true ideal of the Church of Rome ; — that the 
Bishop of Rome, being the Vicar of Christ, possesses the 
authority of Christ on earth — ^an authority extending over the 
temporal kingdoms as well as over the spiritual Churches. It 
is true that this Vicariate has of later years been divested of 
nearly one half of its original, namely, the temporal power of 
Christ ; but it was universally recognized in the middle ages ; 
and even long after the Reformation, was recognized among 
the states still adhering to the Church of Rome. It was in 
the exercise of this supposed Vicariate of the temporal power 
of Christ, that the Pope deposed sovereigns and appointed 
kings at his will ; and required of them to raise their armies 
and carry on wars for the purposes he prescribed. It was in 
the exercise of this claim that he pronounced the deposition 
of Henry VIII. and declared his dethronement of Queen 
Elizabeth. It was in the exercise of this claim he ceded, by 
a mere grant of his own will, the crown and kingdom of 
Ireland to Henry II. of England ; and in after times, gave, by 
a free grant from himself, the crown and realm of England at 
one time to the King of Spain, and at another time to the 
King of France ; and that he took the crown and realm of 
England from King John, and then restored them as gifts 
from himself. It w^as in the exercise of this assumed office 
that the Pope ceded all the East Indies as a possession to the 
King of Portugal, and in like manner gi^anted all the West 
Indies as a free gift to the King of Spain. The principle on 
which these grants were made, and this powder claimed is ex- 
pressly stated in the papal Bulls, namely, " that to the Vicar 
of Christ and successor to St. Peter, belongs every land on 
which the Sun of righteousness has shone." 

All this portion, however, of the idea is passed away. 
While the temporal powers of Europe were petty dukedoms 
and baronies, ever at war wdth each other, the Roman Pontiff 
was able to control them. He freely deposed one and ap- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 411 

pointed another, and by absolving the oaths of allegiance in 
one case, and promising a cession of territory in another, he 
was able to make his power felt throughout Europe. "When, 
however, these petty states became absorbed into larger and 
mightier kingdoms, the sovereigns became conscious of their 
powers, and gradually shook off this temporal authority of the 
Popes, and the result has been, that universally this assumption 
of being the Vicar of Christ in His office as King of kings, 
has been denied and rejected by every state in Europe. The 
temporal scepter has thus passed from the Pontifical hand. 

The Church of Rome, therefore, now comes before us 
speaking no longer of her temporal Vicariate, but only of her 
spiritual Vicariate, and proclaims herself the mother and 
mistress of all Churches. 

The following are the words of her Creed, " I acknowledge 
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the mother 
and mistress of all Churches, and I promise and swear true 
obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, 
Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ,^'' 

When reasoning on this article of her creed, I have stated 
that this was a question of fact — not a question of remote re- 
search or abstract reasoning or refined learning, but simply a 
question of fact, and must be determined as all other questions 
of fact. I have therefore asked — Is it a fact that the Church 
of Rome is the mother Church of Christendom ? It is evident 
from the Holy Scriptures, that the Church of Jerusalem, not 
the Church of Rome, is the mother of all Churches — that 
our Lord commenced His Church at Jerusalem — that He com- 
manded His disciples to go through the cities of Judah alone 
to preach His Gospel, and lay the foundations of His Church 
— that He specially directed His apostles to remain at Jerusa- 
lem, until the Holy Ghost should descend upon them, and 
give them power ; and accordingly, they there waited till the 
power came, and they were enabled to preach, and " the Lord 
added to the Church them that should be saved" — that thus 
the Gospel was first preached, and the Church first formed at 
Jerusalem ; and so, when the apostles went every where found- 



412 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ing tlie cliurclies, they returned to Jerusalem to consult as to 
the controversies that arose — that this Church of Jerusalem 
was thus the first Church — was that from which all the others 
have sprung, and so she is the mother Church of all Christen- 
dom ; and therefore it is not a fact, but a clear and certain un- 
truth, that the Church of Rome is the mother of all churches. 
The apostle Peter first opened the Gospel and founded the 
Church of Jerusalem ; if afterward he founded the Church of 
Eome, then on their own showing, it is — painful and strong as 
the word may be — a known and positive falsehood on the face 
of her creed^ to say the Church of Rome is "the mother of 

ALL CHURCHES." 

To this when I have conversed with Roman Catholics, they 
have never made a reply beyond the suggestion, that there 
was probably some other and difierent meaning for the phrase, 
when the article was determined. 

I have answered this, by saying, we must interpret the lan- 
guage of the creed in its simplest and obvious sense — that the 
article did not pause with this untruth, but proceeded with 
another, namely, that the Church of Roine is " the mistress 
of all churches ;" if by this language it is meant to convey that 
she ought to be, or that she wishes to be mistress of all 
churches, it is intelhgible, though not very modest. As the 
article at present stands, it is untrue. It is untrue as a simple 
question of fact. She is not the mistress of all churches. She 
is not the mistress of the English, the American, the Swedish, 
the Dutch, the Danish, the Prussian, the Greek, the Russian 
the Asiatic Churches. The majority, the numerical majority 
of the professing Christians of the world reject and deny her 
authority. The Eastern Churches, the Greek Churches, the 
Protestant Churches deny her authority. They all hold their 
own independence, and reject the pretensions on her part to 
authority over them. Tbey reject with one voice her pre- 
tended Vicariate of Jesus Christ. It is therefore a broad and 
plain untruth inserted as an article of the creed of the Church 
of Rome ! 

To this it is sometimes answered that she does not regai'd 



THE SUEREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 413 

these as churches at all — that they are out of the pale of 
Christendom ; and that she speaks in her creed only of those 
who are in communion with herself, and who can only be re- 
garded by her as true churches ; and that all she intends in 
the article of her creed is that she is a mother and a mistress, 
not of all the churches, but only of those which are in com- 
munion with her. 

I replied, that evidently this was not the intention of her 
creed. Her object was that at a time, when so many na- 
tional churches, as Germany, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, 
England, broke away from her authority, she might still 
assert her authority over them, claiming, as she still does, 
authority over all baptized persons as her subjects. This 
was apparently her object, as it is involved in the supposed 
supremacy of Saint Peter, and of the popes, his supposed suc- 
cessors. 

It is here the advocates of Rome think themselves able to 
take their stand. Forced from every other ground of argu- 
ment on which they would urge her claim as the mother and 
mistress of all churches, and driven back bewildered and 
broken, by the charge of inserting two plain and admitted un- 
truths in her creed, they invariably fall back upon the asser- 
tion of the supremacy of St. Peter, and the popes his supposed 
successors. 

In my intercourse with Roman Catholics there was no ques- 
tion so frequently discussed, and none on which at first they had 
such unbounded confidence, as this question of the supremacy 
of St. Peter, and of the Church of Rome. 

In justification of this assertion, they adduce one Scripture. 
The whole superstructure of Roman supremacy with all the 
claims and assumptions dependent on it, is erected on that 
one Scripture ; and therefore seeing that it has to support 
on its single shoulder the whole Atlas of Romanism, it ought 
asssuredly to be clear — strong — decisive. When, however, 
we examine this we find that it does not advance them one 
hair's breadth in their argument ; and that they might as well 
hope to suspend the Vatican in the air by a spider's web, as 



414 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

hope to support the superstructure of Romanism on such a 
passage as this. 

The words are in Matt. xvi. 13 : — " When Jesus came into 
the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, 
Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? And they 
said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist : some, Elias ; 
and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto 
them. But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter 
answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say 
also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this roct I will 
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it." Their argument on these words is, that our Lord 
liere constituted St. Peter as the rock or foundation of the 
Church of Christ — that St. Peter was the founder and first 
Bishop of the Church of Rome — and that he granted the privi- 
leges of the Church of Christ to the Church of Roine forever. 

This argument, it is apparent, consists of three distinct 
parts or propositions. It is a chain consisting of three links. 
On this chain the whole system of Roman supremacy and 
Roman authority is suspended. It well behooves these links 
to be strong, when they are to support so vast a burden. 
The slightest defect or weakness in any one would be the de- 
struction of all. 

No one has been much in conversation with Romanists 
without being often reminded of this Scripture, as if they 
never thought it capable of any other interpretation ; and as 
if surprised at any question being raised respecting it. They 
seem really and honestly to believe that it is sufficient to 
justify all the claims of the Church of Rome. 

I have asked my friends to state logically, or at least pre- 
cisely, the nature of their argument from it. 

It was accordingly said that Jesus Christ — before returning 
to heaven — appointed Peter as the rock upon whom His 
Church was to be built ; — ^that therefore the Church of which 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 415 

Peter was bishop, must be alone the Church of Jesus Christ 
— that this Church was the Church of Rome. 

I said in reply, that this argument involved several proposi- 
tions, each of which was questionable in itself, and I suggested 
our examining: them seriatim, 

I. The first proposition — the first link in the chain — ^was 
that our Lord appointed that the Church should be built on 
Peter as on a rock, according to the words, " Thou art Peter 
— and upon this rock I will build my Church, etc." 

I said that I questioned this statement altogether — ^I said 
our Lord Jesus Christ was himself the rock upon which His 
Church was built, and that it was a palpable misinterpretation 
of this Scripture to suppose it was Peter. I then argued as 
follows. 

Our Lord Jesus Chiist is frequently described in Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures under the figure of a rock or a stone. On 
the one hand He is called " the Stone laid in Zion" — Isa. 
xxviii. 16, and the "Corner-stone," and the "Stone of stum- 
bling." On the other hand He is called " the Rock of Salva- 
tion," and "the Rock of our strength," and "our strong 
Rock." Both these terms are applied to Him in a vast varie- 
ty of places, and are designed to point out to us that the 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, is the foundation 
of our hope and the ground of our salvation. It is in this 
spirit that David says, " the Lord is my Rock and my Fort- 
ress and Deliverer ; the God of my Rock, in Him will I trust." 
And again, " Who is God save the Lord ? and who is a Rock 
save our God V And, again, " The Lord liveth, and blessed 
be my Rock, and exalted be the God of the Rock of my 
salvation" — 2 Sam. xxii. 32-47. And in the same way Moses 
sings, " Ascribe ye greatness unto our God ; He is the Rock, 
His work is perfect, and all His ways are judgment." — Deut. 
xxxii. 4. 

Such a use of these terms, pointing to Jesus as the solid 
and firm foundation of His Church and people, occurring so 
frequently in the Old Testament, prepares us for a similar use 
of them in the New Testament Scriptures. Accordingly our 



416 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

blessed Lord uses the following language ! "Jesus saith unto 
them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which 
the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the 
corner : this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our 
eyes ?" This was spoken of Himself, who, under the figure 
of the son in the parable, was rejected by the husbandmen, 
and was to be avenged upon those who thus acted. And 
thus our Lord applies this term to Himself. St. Paul gives it 
the same application, " Ye are built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the 
chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed 
together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." — Eph. ii. 
20. This Scripture shows the full force of the term, as ap- 
plied to Christ, implying that He was the " rock," which forms 
the foundation of His Church ; as the apostle says in 
another place, " as a wise master-builder, I have laid the found- 
ation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take 
heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can 
no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." — 1 Cor. 
iii. 10, 11. 

It is not easy to conceive how such plain Scriptures should 
not be deemed adequate to prove Jesus Christ to be the Stone 
or " Eock," which forms the foundation of the Church. There 
is scarcely a place in all the Scriptures, that does not assist in 
illustrating that great truth. And yet it is held in the Church 
of Eome, that St. Peter, and not Christ, is the " Eock." It is 
happy, however, that we have St. Peter's own judgment upon 
this; from which we learn that so far from claiming this 
honor to himself, he ascribes it altogether to Christ. The 
Scripture to which I refer, is as follows : — " Wherefore, also, 
it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief 
corner-stone, elect, precious ; and he that believeth on Him, 
shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore, which believe, 
He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the 
stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the 
head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of 
offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being diso- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 41 7 

bedient." — 1 Pet. ii. 6-8. In these words, the Apostle Peter 
cites two predictions. One is — " Therefore thus saith the 
Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a Stone, a 
tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation ; he that 
believeth shall not make haste."— Isa. xxviii. 16. This Scrip- 
ture is expressly applied by St. Peter to the Lord Jesus Christ ; 
thus giving to us his sanction for saying, that Christ is the 
"Foundation" and "Stone." The other is— "He shall be 
for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbhng, and for a rock 
of offense." — Isa. viii. 14. This Scripture is also expressly 
applied by St. Peter to the Lord ; thus giving his authority 
for believing the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the " Stone" and 
the " Rock" of which the Holy Scriptures speak. 

This is a point of some interest ; for the whole argument of 
the Church of Rome depends on the position that St. Peter, 
and not Christ, is the " Stone" or " Rock" upon which the 
Church is built. Now here v^e have the express judgment of 
St. Peter on this very point ; for here he himself plainly as- 
cribes it to the Lord Jesus Christ. This enables us to deal 
with that only Scripture, to which the advocates of Rome 
refer. — " Wlien Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, 
He asked His disciples, saying. Whom do men say that I, the 
Son of Man, am ? And they said, Some say that thou art 
John the Baptist ; some, Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one 
of the prophets. He saith unto them. But whom say ye that 
I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered 
and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for 
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father 
which is in Heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." — Matt. xvi. 13-18. 

In these words we find St. Peter making a true confession : 
— "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
These words are the key to the whole passage. This great 
and glorious truth is the foundation of all Christianity. If 
this be true, then all is true. If this be false, then all is false. 

18* 



418 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

This is the great fundamental truth — the truth firm as " the 
Rock of ages" — the truth upon which the whole Church of 
Christ is built. It is, that Jesus is ''' the Christ, the Son of the 
living God." When, therefore, the apostle had uttered this 
great truth — when he had spoken this true confession, our 
Lord arrests his words, and says, " Upon this Rock" — upon 
this truth which is firm as a rock — upon this fact, that I am 
the Messiah, the Son of the living God — upon this which the 
Spirit of God hath revealed to you — "upon this Rock I will 
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it." This — this is the true purport of the words of 
our Lord ; not making St. Peter the " rock," but making Him- 
self — making His own Messiahship — His own Sonship to the 
living God as the great foundation of His Church. 

To take any other view of this Scripture, is to strike at the 
very foundation of the Church. It is clear that the apostles 
never understood them as ceding a supremacy to Peter, for 
immediately afterward, chap, xviii. verse 1, we find them dis- 
puting which of them was to be the greatest ! This dispute 
could never have arisen, if the apostles had believed that our 
Lord's words conferred supremacy on Peter. The thing 
would have been impossible. And to interpret it with the 
advocates of the Church of Rome, would be against the words 
themselves. Our Lord's words are — "Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build My Church." The word " this" 
must clearly refer to the great truth, w^hich had thus been 
spoken, and could not possibly refer to St. Peter ; for as oun 
Lord was speaking to that apostle, He could not have used 
the word " this" but " thee," saying thou art Peter, and upon 
thee do I build my Church." But he says nothing of the 
kind. And as for that which the Romanists allege, namely, 
that the name of Peter is expressive of a stone, and that our 
Lord, caught with the allusion and playing on the name, said, 
" Thou art Peter" (that is, a stone), " and on this rock I will 
build My Church" — it is only accusing our Lord of a poor and 
miserable pun upon the aj)ostle's name ; and that at the mo- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 419 

ment when he was pointing* to the one and only foundation 
of His Church. 

I have found that this exposition of this Scripture is new 
to many Romanists, and I have known several who at once 
received it as far preferable to their own. Many a mind 
candid and sincere, has unhesitatingly adopted it, and thus 
has been led to the first step of their withdrawal from the 
Church of Eome. This exposition is common enough among 
us, and we think it very strange that any other should be 
adopted, but it must always be remembered that the Ro- 
manists are not generally very conversant with the Scrip- 
tures, and have habitually heard of Peter as the rock, and 
therefore our exposition of the words comes with all the 
appearance of novelty to their minds. 

I have of course been very careful to show that this re- 
moves altogether the foundation on which rests all the claims 
of the Church of Rome ; for if one link in the chain of her ar- 
gument be that Peter was the rock, and if it be proved thus 
that Peter was not the rock, the whole system at once falls to 
the ground. If the Vatican be suspended from heaven by a 
chain of three links, and that this is one of them, and that this 
has failed, the result is inevitable. 

But there are many Romanists who have contested with me 
this interpretation. I can not say that they have ever ad- 
vanced any thing beyond some play upon the name Peter, 
signifying Cephas or a stone. And w^hen arguing with such 
persons I have pressed on them — and indeed they generally 
admit it — that it may be considered questionable and uncer- 
tain which is the true meaning — that it is thus a very doubt- 
ful and uncertain text upon which good and learned men may 
fairly differ — that the Fathers of the primitive Church differed 
as widely as ourselves ; and when they have admitted this, I 
have pressed on them the inference that thus after all, on their 
own admission, all the claims of the Church of Rome rest on 
a Scripture of doubtful and uncertain meaning — one on which 
good and learned men may and have differed !-^a strange 
foundation for such high claims as supremacy and infallibility. 



420 EVEXINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

II. I have then recalled the attention of my friends to the 
second proposition — to that which was the second link in the 
chain — to the statement that it was Peter who founded the 
Church of Rome, and who was the first bishop or Pope of 
that Church. 

I argued that the proof of this proposition is absolutely ne- 
cessary to the argument of the Church of Rome. That ne- 
cessity will be apparent thus. Supposing that for argument's 
sake, w^e admit that St. Peter was the " rock," — supposing 
this, we yet ask. How would that admission prove the supre- 
macy of the Church of Rome ? How would it prove, that the 
Bishop of Rome had supremacy over the Bishop of London, 
any more than that the Bishop of London had supremacy 
over the Bishop of Rome ? How would it prove, that the 
Church of Italy had authority over the Church of England, 
any more than the Church of England had authority over the 
Church of Italy ? In this Scripture there is no mention either 
of Pope or of Bishop, of Rome or of London, of Italy or of 
England. And therefore I ask, supposing w^e admit, that 
Peter was the " rock," how that admission would prove the 
supremacy and authority of the Church of Rome over the 
other Churches of Christendom ? 

They finely admitted in reply to this, that their argument 
required that Peter should have been the founder of the 
Church of Rome, or at least have been the Bishop of Rome. 
And that therefore, the claim of supremacy and authority, on 
the part of Rome is dependent on that fact — a fact, which 
they said, was as certain as any other in history. 

I replied that my own faith rested exclusively on the Holy 
Scriptures — ^that the statements of history in general might be 
true or otherwise, and my behef or disbenef of such statements 
did not affect the salvation of my soul — that the statements 
of Holy Scripture were a matter of faith with me, and there- 
fore I asked whether, in so essential an article of faith as that 
Peter was Bishop of Rome, there was any warrant whatever 
in the Holy Scriptures. 

The reply was a frank acknowledgment that there was noth- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 421 

ing in the Holy Scrii^tures to ^^rove it — that as ,to Peter 
having been Bishop of Rome, or even as to his having ever 
been at Rome, the Holy Scriptures are silent. They said 
they were dependent for it altogether on the tradition of 
history. 

I stated that this made an article of faith dependent upon 
the testimony of fallible historians ! I added, that I denied 
altogether the statement as a matter of history. I said 
that that was not the occasion to enter on the historical ex- 
amination, but that I would any time undertake to make good, 
two broad and strong positions. Mrst, that there is extant 
no writer for two hundred years after the death of Christ, who 
has asserted that Peter was the bishop of Rome — and second, 
that the later writers, who mention it, derived it from no ade- 
quate authority, but repeated it one after another, all deriving 
it from an unauthorized statement and from a mistake as to 
the meaning of preceding writers. These two propositions I 
am able to maintain. But at present, my argument is connect- 
ed with the Scriptures. 

I reminded my friend that he acknowledged that in the 
Scriptures there was no evidence whatever, that Peter had been 
Bishop of Rome, or even had ever been at Rome in his life. 
I then added, that there was strong evidence, the strongest 
possible evidence of a presumptive kind, tending to prove the 
contrary. 

I proceeded to state the argument thus. 

In the first place, we read that it was St. Paul who preached 
the Gospel al Rome. He was taken to that city a prisoner. 
His arrival is detailed in the last chapters of the Acts of the 
Apostles. He found some Christians there, his preaching to 
them is related, and then it is added — " Paul dwelt two whole 
years in his own hired house, and received all that came in 
unto him, preaching the kiogdom of God, and teaching those 
things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence 
no man forbidding him." — Acts xxviii. 30, 31. We thus 
learn that it was Paul and not Peter, who collected a Church 
at Rome. 



422 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

In the second place, we read that St. Paul was appointed as 
the apostle of the Gentiles, as St. Peter was the apostle of the 
Jews. We read this in Galatians, ii. 7 : " They saw that the 
Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the 
Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. For He that 
wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circum- 
cision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles." St. 
Paul was therefore the appointed apostle to the Romans as 
being a Gentile people. We have evidence in the Scriptures 
that he fulfilled his office among them ; we have no evidence 
that St. Peter ever visited them in his life. 

In the third place, St. Paul wrote an epistle to the Church 
at Rome, and in the last chapter he sends his salutation to all 
the principal of the Christians there. He specially mentions 
twenty-eight persons, but sends no salutation to St. Peter — 
makes no allusion whatever to him — pays him no respect ; 
and certainly if St. Peter was then at Rome, and especially if 
he was the Bishop or Pope of Rome, an apostle like St. Paul 
could scarcely have failed to send his salutation, or at least 
make some allusion to him, in an epistle written to the Church 
at Rome. 

In the fourth place, Paul, when residing at Rome, wrote his 
epistle to the Colossi ans. In that epistle, he makes mention 
of those Christians at Rome, who assisted him in the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, and comforted him in his troubles, when im- 
prisoned by the rulers. After mentioning Tychicus and Ones- 
imus, he adds, " and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of 
the circumcision : these only are my fellow-workers unto the 
kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. Epa- 
phras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, al- 
ways laboring fervently for you in prayers." — Col. iv. 11. 
These alone — these were the only Christians that had courage 
to stand by him ; so that we may conclude that either St. Pe- 
ter shrank from the cause of persecuted Christianity, or that 
he was not the Bishop of Rome in the time of St. Paul. 

In the first place, the apostle Paul, while residing at Rome, 
wrote his second epistle to Timothy. In that epistle he alludes 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 423 

to bis trial at Rome before tbe imperial authorities ; and be 
says tbe Christians were so frightened that they forsook him : 
"At my first answer no man stood by me, but all men forsook 
me ; I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." — 2 
Tim. iv. 16. Thus all forsook him in the hour of peril; and 
therefore either St. Peter was not then Bishop at Rome, or he 
failed in faithfulness, and abandoned the apostle in the hour 
of need. 

Here, I remarked, are ^ve distinct evidences, and others of 
a similar nature might be added, which taken separately have 
each their own weight, and when taken altogether constitute a 
very grave argument against the assertion that Peter founded 
the Church of Rome, and was the first o£ its bishops. 

The answer to this was one for which I was prepared, as 
being so common among the members of the Church of Rome, 
namely, that these Scriptures did indeed prove that Peter was 
not at Rome during the time that Paul was there ; that they 
also prove satisfactorily that Peter was not at Rome when Paul 
wrote his epistle to the Romans ; that all these Scriptures 
therefore prove, not that Peter did not found that Church, nor 
that he never was bishop there, but only that he was not there 
at any time of which we have evidence in the sacred Scripture. 
And that in the absence of Scripture we have the evidence of 
history to support the assertion. 

I replied that this admission was amply sufficient for my 
argument, namely, that at no time alluded in the Holy Scrip- 
tures was Peter at Rome — that at no time of which we possess 
divine evidence was he in that city — that consequently, if his 
episcopacy there is to be believed, it must be, not on divine 
authority, but only on the uncertain evidence of ordinary his- 
torians — that by consequence this fundamental principle of 
Romanism, this fundamental article of the Roman creed, was 
based on fa?llible, not infalHble writers ! I then reminded him 
of what I had previously stated, namely, that all these faUible" 
writers received their statement from one, only one originally 
— that they merely repeat his statement, and that they did not 
do even this till some two centuries after the death of our 



424 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Lord. And thus a second link in the chain of this argument 
is defective. 

ni. But I reminded my friend that his argument on the 
place in Matt. xvi. required him to make good another partic- 
ular — a third link in the chain. It was that Peter — suppos- 
ing him to have been the rock, supreme and authoritative over 
all — did impart that supremacy to the bishops who succeeded 
him in the see of Rome. Ordinarily speaking it might be 
supposed that the authority and supremacy would have passed 
naturally to the surviving apostles, as for example to the apostle 
John. It could scarcely be believed that it could have passed 
to Linus, or Anacletus, or Clement, or whosoever is to be sup- 
posed to have succeeded, and that this person, of whose name 
all writers are uncertain, assumed supremacy and authority 
over all the surviving apostles, and especially of the beloved 
disciple — St. John. 

J^o answer was made to this. It was merely stated that the 
facts were so. 

I then pressed the point at which I was aiming. I said that 
I would for argument's sake suppose that Peter founded the 
Church of Rome and was the first bishop of that see ; but I 
saw not how that admission could benefit my opponent, inas- 
much as all history testified that Peter founded the Church of 
Antioch, and was the first bishop of that see. The first see 
was that of Antioch ; the second was that of Rome, and all 
the writers of the Church of Rome acknowledo'e that Peter 
was Bishop of Antioch for some years before he was Bishop 
of Rome. The question arises therefore as to which of these 
two Churches, the elder Antioch or the younger Rome, has 
rightfully inherited his supposed supremacy and authority. 

I state the argument thus. — The apostle Peter founded the 
Church of Antioch ; we read in the Scriptures that he was at 
Antioch ; it is acknowledged by the Romanists that he was 
Bishop of Antioch for some years ; this fact being undisputed, 
we argue, that if St. Peter was the " rock" on which the 
Church of Christ was built, then the Church of Antioch has 
as much claim as the Church of Rome to all the prerogatives 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 425 

of Peter. If tlie fact of St. Peter having been Bishop of Eome 
insures the infallibility and supremacy of Rome, then will the 
fact of St. Peter having been Bishop of Antioch insure the in- 
fallibihty and supremacy of Antioch. The plea is as good for 
one as for the other ; if it holds valid for Rome, it must hold 
vaHd for Antioch ; and if it be invalid for Antioch, it must be 
invalid for Rome. 

My friend could give no solution of this difficulty. He con- 
fessed that he saw and felt it, but could not account for it ; but 
that he would make the inquiry of those more competent than 
himself, and tell me the result. He was true to his word, and I 
learned shortly afterward the explanation he received. It was, 
that God, by express revelation, commanded St. Peter ro re- 
sign the bishopric of Antioch, and to accept the bishopric of 
Rome ; and that the exchange having been effected, St. Peter 
bequeathed by will the headship of the Church, with all the 
privileges of authority and supremacy, to the Church of Rome ! 

It seems strange that thinking men should be content with 
such an answer as this — a revelation from God translating 
Peter from the see of Antioch to the see of Rome, and a \vill 
from Peter, bequeathing his supremacy and authority to the 
successors in the see of Rome ! 

They have no other answer than this — they have no other 
link than this to complete the chain ! We tell them there 
never was such a revelation. We tell them there never was 
such a will. And yet, upon this wild and foolish fiction, the 
whole privilege of the headship of the Church, the mother 
and mistress of all Churches — the authority of the Pope — the 
supremacy of the Church — is asserted to exist in the Church 
of Rome in preference to the Cburch of Antioch. On this 
wild and foolish fiction they claim for the Bishop of Rome, 
as the chief Bishop of the Church of Christ, and for the 
Church of Rome, as '' the mother and mistress of all churches," 
an authority over the Church of England ! 

We will never yield ourselves to this claim. Even if they 
could produce a revelation from God, commanding St. Peter 
to remove his see from Antioch to Rome, it could only prove 



426 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

he had lawful authority at Rome ; it could not prove he had 
lawful authority in England. Even if they could produce the 
pretended will of St. Peter, devising authority and supremacy 
to Rome, we must deny his right to make such a bequest. 
We should argue that even if he possessed authority and su- 
premacy himself, he could no more devise them than the 
Queen of England could devise her crown, or than the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury could devise his see. The Queen of 
England has only a life-interest in the crown ; she can not de- 
vise it. The Archbishop of Canterbury has only a life-interest 
in his see ; he can not devise it. And, in the same way, St. 
Peter had only a life-interest in his supposed authoiity and 
supremacy ; he could not devise it. If ever there v/as a head- 
ship of the Church in St. Peter, then, when he died, it either 
died with him, or it must have lapsed to St. Paul, or St. 
James, or St. John, or to some one of the apostles. It is not 
possible it could have descended to any inferior person, that 
he should have a headship over the apostles of our Lord. So 
that if even there was such a revelation and such a will, it 
might prove St. Peter had authority in Rome, but it could not 
prove that he had authority in England. 

And now to review our argument. The claim of the 
Bishop of Rome to the headship of the Church of Christ, and 
his subsequent claim of authority over our Church and realm 
of England, depends or hangs suspended, as it were, on a 
chain consisting of three links. The first is, that St. Peter was 
the rock on which the whole Church was built. .The second 
is, that he placed the Church at Rome, and then connected 
himself with that see. The third is, that, he bequeathed his 
infallible authority from his eldest daughter of Antioch to his 
younger daughter of Rome. It is evident, that if any one of 
these three links be defective, and much more if all of them 
^re defective, the Vf)tican is too vast a burden for them, and the 
whole must fall and be broken in pieces. The more this chain 
of argument is examined, the more assured will every thinking 
man become of the utter vanity and futility of the Romish 
claims. It would not be more vain or futile to dream of sus- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 427 

pending the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral on a spider's web, 
or Windsor Castle on a gossamer thread, than to suspend the 
claims of the Papacy u]3on a support so frail and slender as 
this. 

And yet this is the whole force of their argument, as 
founded on that place in Matthew xvi. It is the sheet-anchor 
to which their advocates hold when all else seems swept away, 
and every thing seems the shattered fragments of a wreck ; 
they therefore chng to it as with the grasp of death. Often, 
however, have I seen them, after many a long and vigorous 
and desperate struggle, at last relax their hold, and, with 
weeping eye and heaving breast, let it be swept away with all 
the useless lumber that had long been connected with it. And 
then all was new. It was indeed a change, great, boundless, 
wonderful. It was as if they had been plunged amid the rag- 
ing surges — had felt a death-struggle — had seen glimpses of 
another world, and had now at last opened the eye on a scene 
of peace and rest and joy. One had spoken the words, 
" Peace, be still," and there v/as a great calm. It was the 
change from the uncertainty of Eomanism to the realities of 
Christianity ! 

While arguing on this subject, my friend, on one occasion, 
objected to my regarding the passage in Matthew as the only 
place that taught the supremacy of Peter. He referred to 
John xxi. 15. He remarked on this, that our Lord's people 
or Church were His flock of " sheep" and of " lambs ;" — that 
they, the old and the young, were alike committed to Peter, 
and not to the other apostles ; and he therefore inferred that 
our Lord constituted him as the Chief Shepherd of souls, as 
His Vicar or Chief Shepherd upon earth. 

In reply to this, I expressed the pain that every good man 
must feel at the fact, that Scriptures like this should ever be- 
come a field of controversy. They were designed for the use 
and profit and improvement of souls, showing their need of 
constant watching and tending, and also showing the real 
duty of the ministry of the Church as the shepherds of the 
flock. I added, that the allusion in the present instance was a 



428 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

painful one, and militated against Peter. He had denied our 
Lord — he had done so three times — he had done so with 
every aggravation, even with cursing and oaths ; and he was 
probably regarded, at least there was danger of his being re- 
garded by the other Apostles, as having fallen from his apos- 
tleship. They knew that Judas had so fallen. Peter himself 
knew this and states this. (Acts, i. 20.) His mind and their 
mind required to be satisfied. And our Lord, therefore, ad- 
dressed Peter in this remarkable way to set all this at rest. 
Peter had denied Him three times. And in allusion to this 
our Lord commits to him three times the office which he had 
justly forfeited, that of being one of the shepherds of His 
flock. And thus, I argued, that these v/ords can in no sense 
be construed into an appointment of Peter as the head of the 
Church and Vicar of Christ. They were designed rather to 
humble him, as reminding him of his fall. 

My friend was not satisfied altogether with this, and added, 
that our Lord must have intended something more than this. 
"We never read of any other persons being desired to feed 
the sheep and the lambs of Christ ; He used such language 
only to Peter. 

I told him that the same language was applied in Holy 
Scripture to all the ministers of the Church ; that they all, as 
well as Peter, were addressed as shepherds of the flock of 
Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd of the sheep ; that Paul so 
addresses them : " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and 
to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you 
overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he has purchased 
with his own blood." — Acts, xx. 28. Such was the language 
of Paul ; and that of Peter himself is similar : " The elders 
Avho are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder — feed the 
flock." — 1 Peter, v. 1. This language shows that all the min- 
istry of the Church are the shepherds of the flock of Christ ; 
and, therefore, that there is nothing extraordinary in the ap- 
plication of the same language by our Lord to Peter. 

My friend made no further remark on this subject, so I took 
occasion to say that I never could see why the advocates of 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 429 

the Churcli of Rome were so anxious to magnify Peter above 
the other Apostles. I could never see how they could benefit 
their position by such means ; for, even supposing they could 
prove that Apostle to be the prince of the apostles, I could not 
see how that fact, if indeed a fact, could give reality to any 
fiction, or effect to any assumption, or truth to any error, that 
might exist in the Church of Rome. I stated freely, that I 
did not want to press the argument, that of all the Apostles 
Peter seemed the least fitted for supremacy ; he reproved our 
Lord for speaking of his coming sufferings ; he refused to be 
washed by the hands of our Lord ; he proposed on the Mount 
of Transfiguration to make a tabernacle for Moses and Elias, 
as if on an equality with Christ, as the evangehst simply re- 
marks : " not knowing what he said ;" he denied our Lord 
under the most base circumstances, with cursing and oaths ; 
he was openly withstood to the face by Paul, because he had 
dissembled and was to be blamed as not walking uprightly. 
He seems thus the least likely to have been selected to be the 
prince of the apostles ; the more esjDecially as on two occa- 
sions, Luke ix. 46 and xxii. 24, we read of some disputes 
among them as to who was to be the greatest. Now as the 
much-boasted passage supposed to have conferred this chief- 
ship on Peter occurs in Matt, xvi., and as the dispute among 
them, as to v/ho was to be the greatest, occurred immediately 
afterward, in Matt, xviii., so it must be inferred J:hat the ques- 
tion was not settled by our Lord's words in Matt. xvi. ; or 
otherwise the dispute could never have arisen. And besides 
this, our Lord would at once have silenced it by reminding 
them that he had already appointed Peter over them, if in- 
deed he had appointed him. But instead of this, as if noth- 
ing of the kind had ever occurred, he puts a child in the midst, 
and proceeds to tell them that no one was to be their chief, for 
that all were to be equal as brethren. 

There was no effort to reply to this ; so I said, that even if 
we granted a supremacy or a primacy to St. Peter, I could 
not see how it improved the position of the Church of Rome, 
so far as her claims were concerned. The great point between 



430 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

US was, whether certain doctrines and practices, which we held 
to be untrue and novel, contrary to Holy Scripture and differ- 
ent from the primitive Church, were or were not the true doc- 
trines and practices of Christ's Church. I could never see 
how any question respecting Peter could determine this. Let 
him be supposed to have held any position whatever in the 
days of our Lord and of His Apostles, that fact, supposing it 
to be a fact, could not be a justification of any error of doc- 
tiine or of practice which had afterward crept into the Church 
of Rome. His ancient primacy could not give truth to any 
modern error. 

My friend, who had been silent, as if doubtful how to 
reply, now said, that if Peter was the head of the Church, it 
might fairly be inferred that the Church of Rome has inherited 
that headship over the whole Church, so as to be entitled to 
the obedience of all other Churches. 

I said that I could not for a moment recognize any head 
of the Church but one — the Lord Jesus Christ. He, and only 
He, is in the Holy Scriptures, styled the Head of the Church. 
*• He hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be 
the Head over all things to the Church." — Eph. i. 22. Again, 
'* Christ is the Head of the Church." — Eph. v. 23. Again, 
"He is the Head of the body, the Church."— Col. i. 18. 
Again in Col. ii. 19. And again, "that we may grow up into 
Him in all things who is the Head, even Christ." — Eph. iv. 15. 
The language of Holy Scripture is clear on this subject, and 
we can not without irreverence speak of any other as Head of 
the Church. It is a grand element of truth as received among 
us, that there can be no Head but Jesus Christ. 

My friend seemed fully aware of this principle. He did 
not seem so well aware that the Holy Scriptures had so fre- 
quently spoken only of Christ as the Head. He therefore 
said, that admitting that Jesus Christ was the Head over the 
Church, yet as He was in Heaven, He required a Head for His 
Church on earth, and that thus the successors of Peter in the 
See of Rome claimed to be his vicars on earth. 

I said that the fact of Jesus Chiist having ascended into 






THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 431 

Heaven, did not prove any necessity for a vicar or deputy on 
earth, inasmuch as he was ever present by His Holy Spirit, 
ruhng all things in the Church. The Holy Spirit was the One 
who rules in his stead. And as to the argument that Christ 
had ascended into Heaven — that he was no more in the Church 
on earth — and that he therefore required a vicar in his place, 
I said that it seemed to me a strange position for a Romanist, 
who believed that He w^as literally, truly, substantially in flesh, 
and blood, and soul, and divinity, on every altar, and at all 
times in her churches. If indeed He is thus always present, 
it can not be supposed He wants a vicar to represent Him. 

This way of stating the question struck my friend as nev/, 
and he saw no way of getting out of it. And, therefore, with- 
out attempting to answer it, he only said carelessly, that with 
so many Churches in the world, it was desirable to have one to 
rule over them all, as the one head bishop of all upon earth. 
It would serve to promote and establish unity and uniformity 
among all. 

I w^as fully prepared for this point, for I had heard it urged 
a thousand times. I said that my friend knew that there were 
many kingdoms, and empires, and republics in the world. 
They were all under their own particular laws and rulers ; and 
there seemed no necessity or even advantage, but quite the 
contrary, in their having One Chief Sovereign who was to be 
head over all other sovereigns, w^ith the view of establishing 
one set of law^s and principles among them. It was, undoubt- 
edly, better for mankind that each state should be governed 
by itself, all being under the headship of Him who is the King 
of kings, and Lord of lords. And in like manner, there are 
many national Churches under their own laws and rulers. 
And there is no more necessity for their being all subjected to 
one head on earth, than that all the civil states of the world 
should be subjected to one sovereign over all. Wisdom would 
seem to teach that all states should be ruled by themselves, 
all being alike under the Headship of Christ, and that in like 
manner all Churches should be regulated by themselves, all 
being alike under the Headship of Chiist. The Churches 



432 EVENINGS WITH THE KOMANISTS. 

require a Head upon eartli no more than the states. They 
both have their Head in the heavens, and he can rule both 
without any special vicar upon earth. If he can rule the 
kingdoms and empires of the earth without any supreme vicar 
over all, He can as fully rule all the national Churches of the 
earth without any supreme vicar over all. 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 

The two Modes of testing Infallibility— The Yalue of this Privilege— It is claimed 
by all Churches — The Romanists place it in Councils and Popes — Protestants have 
it in the Holy Scriptures — The Systems compared — A living and speaking Infal- 
libility does not exist in any Church— Eomish Arguments for Infallibility exam- 
ined—Its supposed Necessity and Usefulness— Texts of Scripture— Argument in 
common with the Jewish Church — Its Infallibility more easily provable than 
that of the Eomish Church — General Councils, their Constitutions and Incon- 
sistencies. 

In reference to the claim of infallibility, on tlie part of the 
Church of Rome, there is a wide difference ia the process of 
argument, as handled by her advocates, and as handled by her 
opponents. They always assume that their Church is infallible, 
and thence conclude that whatever she teaches is right — 
whatever its appearances, it is right. We, on the other hand, 
argue, that, that which the law condemns is wrong, and thence 
we conclude that she is not infallible. With them the assumed 
infallibility justifies and sanctions the thing that seems to us 
to be wrong. With us the thing being wrong, proves that 
the Church is not infallible. 

An illustration — and the more simple the better — will 
elucidate this difference of reasoning. If a man has been 
detected in the act of thieving, and has been charged with 
dishonesty and crime, there are two modes of reasoning on his 
case. On one hand he may admit the fact, that he has robbed, 
but he may argue that the act was neither dishonest nor crimi- 
nal, because that he was an honest and lawful man, who would 
never have done that which was dishonest or criminal. 
He thus admits the fact, but justifies it on the ground that 
it is done by one who can not do wrong, and whose very 
doing it justifies and sanctions it. His accuser, on the other 

19 



434 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

hand, proves the fact, and argues that thieving or robbing is 
contrary to the law, a breach of the written law. And being 
a dishonest and criminal act, the man who is gnilty, must 
be held to be dishonest and criminal. This illustration 
explains the different process of reasoning of the advocates of 
the rival Churches. The Eoraanist argues that Latin prayers, 
half-communion, prayers to saints, worship of Mary, use of 
images, etc., are all wise, and right, and good, because they 
have been done by an infallible Church. However wrong, 
mischievous, dangerous, unscriptural they may seem, they 
ought to be held wise, and good, and right, because sanctioned 
by an infallible Church. The Protestant, on the other hand, 
argues that these practices are contrary to the law, the written 
law of God, as contained in Holy Scriptures (as contrary as 
thieving and robbery is to the written law of the land), and, 
therefore, the fact that the Church of Rome has ordained, and 
practiced, and taught these, proves that she is an erring and 
guilty Church, instead of being, as she assumes, an infallible 
one. Thus the Church of Rome tries her actions by her claim 
to infallibility, and we try her claim to infallibility by her 
actions, thus trying her as we try the professing Christian, 
that is, we test his profession of Christianity by his actions, not 
his actions by his profession. We judge the tree by its fruit, 
not the fruit by the tree. 

The natural course, which common sense and just dealing 
will justify, and which is analogous to all our dealings in 
human life, is to test the character of the Church of Rome by 
her actions — to test her orthodoxy by her doctrines, and her 
infallibiUty by her practices. It is therefore that every proof 
of the unscriptural and antiscriptural nature of her peculiar 
doctrines and practices — every proof of their being inconsist- 
ent with or contrary to the lex scripta, the written law of God, 
is a proof against the assumed infallibility of the Church of 
Rome. It is precisely with that Church as with every man. 
If we have proved him to have spoken words which the law of 
the land condemn as rebellious or treasonable, or, if we have 
proved him to have done an action which the written law of 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 435 

tlie land condemns as illegal and criminal, lie is at once con- 
demned. And so, if we have proved that the Church of 
Eome has taught doctrines contrary to the written word of 
God, or that she has inculcated practices opposed to the 
written law of God — if we have proved that she has ordained 
that which is unscriptural or anti-scriptural, she must be con- 
demned. This is the judgment of all common sense and right 
justice alike.* 

But, as the advocates of the Church of Rome insist on 
assuming her to be infallible and as justif^^ing every thing in 
the virtue of her assumed infalHbility, we may follow them, 
and impeach her claim to infallibility without reference to 
her actions at all. The follov/isg conversation, in which I 
w^as once engaged with a very good and zealous priest of the 
Church of Rome, will illustrate this. 

He spoke in a tone that showed he felt what he was saying. 
when he expatiated upon the value of an infallible authority. 
He reminded me that naturally we were all in the deepest 
darkness and ignorance as to the spiritual and eternal world — 
that we naturally knew nothing about heaven or hell — about 
God, or Christ, or the Spirit, or the Virgin Mary, or the 
angels, or the saints, or even our own souls — that all the 
mythologies of the heathen world, the Egyptian, the Greek, 
the Hindoo, and many others only showed what poor and 
blind guides were the wisest of men — that the great thing, 
therefore, that was wanted by us, was an infalHble guide, a 
teacher, so to speak, inspired by God himself — and that this 
was to be found only in the bosom of that Church which was 
infallible. 

I replied in the same tone of earnestness, feeling the reality 

*•' Some of her advocates argue that though these acts seem con- 
trary to the written law of God, yet they are not contrary to the un- 
written law — ^though seeming contrary to the Scriptures, they are not 
contrary to tradition. They distinguish thus, as between the statute 
law and the common law of England ; and they forget that the com- 
mon law, that is, the unwritten law of England, must always yield to 
the statute or written law. It should be the same in the Church. 



436 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

of what I was saying. I stated clearly and strongly how 
fully I agreed with him as to the value and necessity for an 
inftillible authority. And I dwelt on the intense ignorance 
and darkness — a darkness which, like that of Egypt, could be 
felt — of man when left in his natural state, urging that he 
knew not whence he came, where he was, or whither he was 
going, and that there was a necessity — an absolute necessity — 
for an infallible authority, a God-inspired authority, to teach 
him with certainty the way of life. I added that thus far we 
were both in perfect accord. The point where we differed, 
was as to the place, where we could find it. We looked for 
it in different directions. 

He said at once with confidence, apparently enchanted at 
my admission, that it was in the Church of Home — that no 
other Church could pretend to the claim, and in fact that no 
other Church had ever claimed it. 

I replied that all the Churches of Christendom — that the 
Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Lutheran 
Church, all the Nonconformist Churches claimed it alike. 
There was not one of them with which I was acquainted that 
did not claim the full possession, not indeed the exclusive, but 
the full possession of this infallibility. They all possessed 
THE Holy Scriptures ! They all received them, " not as the 
word of man ^ buth as they are in truth, the loord of GodP 
They knew that " All Scripture was given hy inspiration of 
Godil'' and they felt that those Scriptures were, therefore, infal- 
lible, were an infallible guide, an infallible teacher, and, pos- 
sessing this, they claimed to possess and did possess infalli- 
bility, the infalhbility that was so valuable and necessary. 

My friend was evidently taken by surprise at this. It 
seemed never to have occurred to him before ; so I took occa- 
sion to add that, where he had described the natural ignorance 
of man, here was the God-inspired guide to teach him — that 
where he had painted the deep darkness of man in his state 
of nature, here was the infallible authority that could enlighten 
and direct him, and that could tell him all that man can 
know, as being all God has revealed, respecting Heaven and 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 437 

Hell, and God and Christ and the Spirit, and also all we ought 
to know or think respecting the angels, or the saints, or our 
own souls. The only true infallibility, which the Church on 
earth possesses, is in the Holy Scriptures. And this infal- 
lible GUIDE all the Protestant Churches possess ! 

He did not see how he could answer this. He hesitated, 
and after a few moments said that he admitted the Holy 
Scriptures to be inspired and therefore infallible, and that 
possessing them, we of course possessed an infallible guide. 
But the real difficulty w^as not the Scriptures, but the intrepre- 
tation of the Scriptures, and the advantage of the Church of 
Rome was, that she had an infallible interpreter of the Scrip- 
tures, while others had only their own fallible interpretation 
of private judgment. 

I was prepared for this answer, and rejoined at once by 
asking him where I was to find the infallible interpreter of 
Scripture in the Church of Rome. 

He said, without a moment's hesitation, that it was in the 
voice of the Church of Rome ; that if I really wished to see it, 
I could see it recorded in the canons and decrees of the 
general councils, and in the bulls of the popes — that these 
contained the infallible voice, and interpretation of the 
Scriptures. 

I reminded him in reply, that some of the Church of Rome, 
as the French, held that the infallibility was in the general 
councils rather than in the popes — that others of them, as the 
Italians, insist that the infallibility resides in the popes rather 
than in the councils — and that other authorities still, as the 
English, teach that the infallibility is in neither the councils 
nor the popes, but in the whole aggregate of the whole 
Church, represented by the union of both popes and councils. 
I reminded my friend that it was not easy for me to find the 
precise locality where I could discover the infallible interpreter 
of Scripture. Each party seemed to me to prove clearly that 
his opponent was wrong, but to argue very feebly when en- 
deavoring to prove that his own position was right, and there- 
fore, I asked again, where among these discordant opinions, 



438 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

could I find that infallible interpreter whicli lie admitted to 
be so essential. 

It was at once apparent that he felt the diflSculty of his 
position ; he said that such difi'erence of opinion was wholly 
unimportant — that however the Italians might differ from the 
French, and both from the English, yet they all agreed that 
the Church was infallible, and that was the main point. They 
agreed in that which was essential, and they differed only in 
that which was non-essential. 

I apologized for seeming to be persevering. The question, 
I said, was not whether there was infallibility in the Church 
of Eome, but where was I to find in her the infallible inter- 
preter of Scripture which he stated to be so essential. He 
had merely stated that it v>^as sojnewhere, but omitted to say 
where, and I felt that the infallible interpreter was to be found 
nowhere — if as one party, the French, stated it was not in the 
popes, and if another party, as the Italians, asserted it was not 
in the councils, and if a further party, as the Enghsh, held it 
was not to be found in either the one or the other, we were 
left practically to the position of those who could not find it 
any where, as if it really had no actual existence any where. I 
therefore, pressed him kindly to direct me where I should posi- 
tively, or at least probably, find this infallible interpreter. 

He evidently knew not precisely what reply to make to my 
natural inquiry ; but he said that the disputes in the Church 
of Rome, as to the seat of infallibility, were quite unimportant, 
so long as the existence of the infallibility somewhere within 
her was admitted ; and he assured me that I had only to study 
the hanons and the councils and the hulls of the popes, and I 
should soon find the infallible interpreter. 

This placed the whole argument in my hands ; I therefore 
said, that on his own showing, the difference between the 
Roman infalHbility and the Protestant infallibility was this — 
the Roman infallibility was said to be in the canons and 
BULLS OF POPES, whilc the Protestant infallibility was in the 
Holy Scriptures ; the question therefore was, which of these 
two was the most useful, convenient, available. The Roman 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 439 

infallibility was comprised in a large and vast series of pon- 
derous volumes, to be found only in the libraries of the uni- 
versities, and of public institutions, requiring a whole life to 
read them, and a fortune to purchase them. The Protestant 
infallibility, on the other hand, was in one small and compact 
volume, to be found in every family, and so cheap as to be ac- 
cessible to all, and easily perused by all. Again, the Roman 
infallibility was contained in canons and bulls, written originally 
in Greek and in Latin, and never translated into our modern 
languages, and therefore wholly inaccessible and useless to the 
great multitude of the Christian family. The Protestant in- 
fallibility on the other hand, is found in the Holy Scriptures, 
which, though originally written in Hebrew and Greek, have 
been translated and circulated in every language, and thus 
have become accessible and intelligible to all the family of 
Christ. And, although my friend had stated that the Holy 
Scriptures were subject to this objection, that they required 
to be translated — that they required their authenticity to be 
proved — that they required their inspiration to be demon- 
strated — that they required to be interpreted, as otherwise they 
were liable to be misinterpreted and differently interpreted by 
different persons ; so the very same objections applied to the 
canons of councils and bulls of popes, for that they required 
also to be translated — they required also their authenticity to 
be proved — they required also their inspiration to be demon- 
strated — they required also to be interpreted, as otherwise they 
were liable to be misinterpreted and differently interpreted by 
different persons. There was not a single objection advanced 
against the Holy Scriptures, the infallible guide of the Prot- 
estant Churches, which does not apply still more strongly 
against the canons and bulls which are the infallible guide 
of the Roman Churches. And there is this one important 
consideration — one of immense and solemn importance on 
such a subject. Our guide, the Holy Scriptures, is admitted 
by Roine herself to be God-inspired, and therefore infal- 
lible. There is no question on that point, that infallibility is 
admitted by all ; while, on the other hand, her guide, the 



440 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

councils and the popes, are not only not recognized or believed 
by us to be God-inspired or infallible, but the very reverse ; 
they are uninspired and fallible. 

We were thus brought to a pause in our argument. We 
had agreed as to the value and necessity for some infallible 
authority to teach and enlighten us in the things of the invis- 
ible world. We had agreed that it ought to be easily ac- 
cessible, available and intelligible to the people. The point 
whereon we were not agreed, was that my friend on the part 
of the Church of Eome said that this infallible authority was 
the Holy Spirit, inspiiing the canons of councils, and 
BULLS OF POPES, whilc I maintained that it was the Holy 
Spirit, inspiring the Holy Scriptures. This, therefore, 
brought the question concerning infallibility to a short issue. 
It enabled me to place it in a simple and clear light.' It 
enabled me to place the volumes of councils and bulls on one 
side, and the Holy Scriptures on the other — to place the twenty 
or thirty ponderous volumes of the former on one side, and 
the one portable volume of the Bible on the other — to look 
at the untranslated and almost untranslatable Greek and Latin 
of the former on one hand, and on the plain and simple trans- 
lation into English of the latter on the other hand — to look 
at the former, so large, cumbrous, expensive, on one side, and 
to look at the latter, so small, convenient, and cheap, on the 
other side — and having marked the contrast, we were in some 
condition to see which was the most convenient, accessible, 
and available for the multitude, who constituted the children 
of God and family of Christ. 

My friend saw that the question was thus narrowing ; and 
he likewise saw with clearness the difficulty of his position — 
the difficulty in which he was brought by this process of rea- 
soning, but he did not see with equal clearness any mode by 
which he could extricate himself. He made, however, the best 
answer he could, when he said that in an authority in spiritual 
things, such as that which we were seeking, there were other 
requisites besides probability and cheapness and availableness. 
These, he said, were very desirable, perhaps — ^but they were 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 441 

not all. The grand requisite was, that the authority should 
be INFALLIBLE, and that it should be universally recognized 

AS INFALLIBLE. 

To thisi I of course yielded my assent ; and taking advan- 
tage of his words, I reminded him that that was the grand 
recommendation of the Holy Scriptures as well as the great 
defect of the canons and bulls. It was the grand recommend- 
ation of THE Holy Scriptures that their divine inspiration and 
infallibility is universally recognized, by Protestant and Ro- 
manist and Greek alike, while it is one great defect of the 
COUNCILS AND BULLS OF POPES that their divine inspiration or 
infallibility is not only not recognized, but absolutely rejected 
and denied by the majority of professing Christendom ! 

He then said that the Holy Scriptures, considered as the in- 
falhble authority in the Church, were liable to a further objec- 
tion which he had not yet stated. It was that they were now 
silent, and could not speak so as to decide on any question that 
had been raised for some centuries. It could not in fact be a 
living and speaking infallibility. 

I said that it was scarcely necessary to remind him that the 
canons of councils and bulls of popes are in that respect in 
the very same predicament as the Holy Scriptures. They are 
no more living and sioeaking than the Holy Scriptures. If 
one be objected to because it is merely a book or volume, then 
the very same objection will he against the other ; for the can- 
ons of councils and the bulls of popes are only a series of 
volumes — a dead, lifeless, non-speaking series of books or vol- 
umes. And any other exists not in the Church of Rome ; for 
since the Council of Trent in 1562, there has never been a 
Council. For three hundred years this infallible authority has 
been in abeyance, and in silence, and must be so to the end of 
time. Whatever possibilities ever existed before the Reforma- 
tion, for the assembling of a universal or general council of 
Christendom, it is now impossible. And, therefore, if the liv- 
ing and speaking infaUibility be in the canons of councils, ap- 
proved by the bulls of popes, then not only has it been three 
centuries in silence and abeyance, but it is in such a position 

19* 



442 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that, like the long-buried dead, it can not rise again till tlie 
judgment of the last day. And, I added, that the conduct of 
all their advocates proved this, for they never refer us to any 
living and speaking authority. They refer us always to some 
past council — some long past councils of which the very latest 
met and separated three centuries ago, and referring us to 
these, and not to any living and speaking infaUibihty, they 
practically show that they have no faith themselves in the ex- 
istence of such. 

I ask you then, I said in conclusion, who or what or where 
is the living and speaking infallibility, to which you refer as 
so unspeakably valuable and essential ? You invite me to sub- 
mit to it, you beseech me to come to it. Who, and what and 
where is it ? I mean this living and speaking infallibility — 
who.^ and what and where is it ? 

My friend made no attempt to answer this. Long since 
this conversation was held, I have been answered at Rome that 
the Pope was this living and speaking infallibility, but my 
fiiend did not believe the popes to be infallible. He held that 
the infallibility was in the general councils approved by popes, 
and he therefore knew not where to turn to find a living and 
speaking infallibility in reply to my inquiry. 

But the question concerning infallibility is wide and large. 
It will bear handling in a great variety of ways. And I have 
usually left myself to be guided by the line adopted by my 
opponents. 

On one occasion, when conversing with a priest who 
seemed to me a good and pious man according to his light, 
we had been speaking on some great truths, on which we 
were not likely to differ, when he broke out with a warm and 
rapturous address on the comforts and blessedness and value 
of infaUibihty — the infallibility of the Church. It gave, he 
said, such peace and quiet assurance to the mind ; so that a 
Christian i^an was not " tossed to and fro ^vith every wind." 
It was such a satisfaction to know that one was on an immov- 
able rock, and that in all we were to believe or to do, we had 
the sanction of the infallibility of the Church. He added, 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 443 

that to Ills mind the possession of infallibility was the greatest 
and most blessed of the privileges or prerogatives of the 
Church. 

I repKed, that I could understand an infallibility in the 
Holy Scriptures, but that I could not understand it in any 
other way in the Church. 

He said that it was impossible for any man, amid the in- 
numerable divisions of the times, the endless distractions of 
the professing Church, the variety of sects and parties, the 
multiplicity of opinions, to have any peace or quiet assurance 
of mind, unless by reposing on the infallible authority of the 
Church — that men of the most astute intellect, and the deep- 
est and most profound genius, were unable often to determine 
between the arguments of opposing parties — that men learned 
in all historical research and ecclesiastical lore, felt themselves 
often like some ship, made the sport of the winds and the 
waves, without pilot or compass to guide them ; that men of 
gentle spirits and meek and lowly piety were agitated and 
distracted by the contentions, the contradictions, the argu- 
ments of rival sects, till it seemed to them that religion was 
for contention and not for peace ; that in the midst of all this, 
men could see no star to guide, no compass to direct, unless 
they consented to surrender their own priviite judgments, and 
submit all their doubts and difficulties, to the infallible autho- 
rity of the Church. 

I said that I could quite enter into and understand all this, 
provided it was first proved that this infaUible authority did 
really exist in the Church of Rome. I said that my difficulty 
was not in yielding to an infallibility ; for I yielded all to the 
infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures ; but that my real 
difficulty was in belie\ang that there was some infallible 
authority in the Church of Rome, other and beside the Holy 
Scriptures. 

He spoke to me with warmth and earnestness, and instead 
of noticing my difficulty — instead of proving the existence of 
this infallible tribunal, he expatiated on the sad and melan- 
choly divisions of the phurch. On one hand was the Greek 



444 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Church with all the Asiatic Churches, separated from the 
communion of the one Catholic Church. On the other hand 
was the Protestant Church with its endless variety of sects, 
cut off from the pale of the one Catholic Church ; and in 
these distractions there could be no peace for any man, till he 
once resolved to silence his own doubting, unbelieving temper, 
and submitted himself to the infallible authority of the 
Church. He said he could well understand the state of my 
mind, and would not for the world exchange for it his own 
quiet and undoubting faith in the Church. If a subtle argu- 
ment was subjected to him and he could not answer it, he felt 
it must be wrong, as being opposed by infalhbility — if a 
doubting feeling passed for a moment across his mind as to 
any Catholic truth, it was at once silenced by resting on infal- 
libility. And as to all the sects and parties into which we 
were divided, as to all the opinions that were discussed and 
debated among us, they were at once disposed of by an ap- 
peal to infallibility ; and he added that I could never have 
quiet of heait, or peace of mind, until I had unreservedly 
flung from me every previous opinion, and every judgment of 
my own, so as to accept unreservedly and with implicit faith, 
the judgment of the Church of Rome. 

I replied to all this in an earnest and affectionate tone ; I 
felt he was sincere ; I therefore stated that I had been in the 
habit of regarding the Holy Scriptures as infallible, as being 
the Word of God, especially as it was expressly said that " all 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and that I con- 
ceived that all the advantages which he imagined in connec- 
tion with the infallibility of the Church of Rome^ were 
enjoyed by myself in connection with this infallibility of the 
Holy Scciptures, Having stated this, and having with all 
warmth of heart portrayed to him the preciousness of the 
Word of God to the soul — the light that shone from its 
pages, the comforts that were in its promises, the blessedness 
that it portrayed, the love of Christ that it exhibited, the full- 
ness for our salvation which characterized it — having stated 
all this, and pressed on him the peace and joy and blessed- 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 445 

ness he would find in the study of it ; promising that he 
would realize as David did, that the Word was " sweeter than 
honey and the honeycomb" — having stated all this, I con- 
cluded by reminding him that the difficulty on my mind was, 
that he had never shown me that there w^as any infallible 
tribunal, other or beside this, in the Church of Rome. There 
could be no doubt or hesitation in at once submitting to it, if 
once its existence were proved. I therefore asked him to 
prove to me the existence of this other infallible tribunal be- 
side the Holy Scriptures ; and I pressed on him that as he 
had urged me to have recourse to it, he was bound at least to 
prove to me its existence. 

He said that it was scarcely necessary to undertake to 
prove that which was universally admitted, namely, that 
there was in the Church an infalhble authority. It was 
proved by the necessity for its existence. The Church could 
not go on without it. There could be no unity without it. 
All would be private judgment, and division, and distraction 
without it. All peace, and order, and certainty would vanish 
away without it. And the Church would necessarily become 
a field of contention instead of peace, and a scene of division 
instead of unity, if such an infallible authority did not exist, 
to restrain, silence, certify on all things. There is thus a ne- 
cessity of the highest kind for the existence of this infallible 
authority ; and we thus prove it by this necessity for its exist- 
ence. Without it there -would be endless inconvenience. With 
it there are incalculable advantages. 

I replied that all this seemed to me to prove only that au- 
thority was desirable — an authority which could influence the 
mind and calm the contentions of men ; but that it did not 
prove the existence of an infallible authority^ which was the 
point before us. I said that an example ^\rould illustrate this. 
In the civil state an authority was necessary to restrain the 
wicked, and there must, therefore, be an authority in the law, 
and an authority in the executive, or the whole social state 
— the whole fabric of civil society — would crumble in toruin. 
That authority suppresses treason, rebellion, murder, robbery. 



1 



446 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

and all crimes against the well-being of society, and there is 
a necessity for this ; but there is no necessity for infallible 
laws and an infallible authority in the civil power for this. 
There is need for authority in the civil sovereign, but no need 
of infallible authority ; and in like manner, though his argu- 
ment went to prove the need of authority in the Church, it 
showed no need of infallible authority. 

He saw this, and acknowledged it, but he added, that it 
would be of immense advantage that the authority in the 
Church should be infallible, as by being infallible it silenced 
not only the contentions and divisions and controversies of 
men, but silenced also the very doubts, as they ai'ose in the 
minds of men. He argued, therefore, that the great import- 
ance and value of the thing, the convenience of having an in- 
fallible tribunal, was a presumptive argument to prove the ex- 
istence of the thing. Look, he said, at the state of your Prot- 
estant Churches. They are divided and torn asunder, the very 
soldiers that crucified the Blessed Saviour would not rend his 
garment, but cast lots for it, rather than tear it, but the Prot- 
estants, worse than these Pagans, tear the precious garment, 
the Church of Christ, into fragments ! It is not too much to 
say that between the Church of England and Scotland, Epis- 
copalian and Presbyterian, and Methodist, and Baptist, and In- 
dependent, and Moravian, and Ir\dngites, and Mormonites, and 
others, there are above a hundred different sects and parties, 
and yet they all appeal to the Holy Scriptures, they all ac- 
knowledge the Scriptures as their infalUble authority — their in- 
fallible rule of faith, but in their interpretation of it, all their 
divisions arise. Now in this state of things, there is evidence 
of the necessity or at least the immense importance of an in- 
fallible tribunal to judge between them, to heal their divisions 
and bring all these discordant elements so as to mold them 
into harmony. It is like the necessity for omnipotence to 
brinor order out of chaos at creation. And this affords stronor 
ground for the behef that such an infallible authority really 
exists. And again, when reading the Scriptures it is impos- 
sible to avoid seeing that they are " hard to be understood." 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 447 

Indeed an apostle exj)ressly says they are so, and looking at 
the multiplicity of interpretation, which have been put on each 
passage, so contrary one to another, it is not possible to feel 
otherwise than wishing for an infallible authority to decide 
for us. 

I replied by saying that I could readily admit that to allay 
strife and contention — to put an end to the endless divisions 
of the Church — and to quiet doubting minds, and settle every 
disputed tenet, would be very desirable, and if an infallible 
authority, other and beside the Holy Scriptures, could be 
found to do this, it would be very desirable indeed ; but I said, 
the defect of his whole reasoning was his supposing that to 
wish for it, was a proof that we had it, or that our thinking it 
desirable, was any real proof that it existed. The desirable- 
ness of any thing is no proof that the thing exists. The con- 
venience — the supposed convenience — of a thing, is no evidence 
that it really exists. It may seem very convenient and desir- 
able, that all pain and disease and sorrow should be banished 
from our nature — that at least an elixir vitce that could effect- 
ually heal them all, should be revealed to our science. It may 
seem to be convenie]^t, and desirable that the fountain of 
youth and life, in which mortals had only to balfhe and be- 
come young again, and immortal on earth, should be not a 
fable but a reality, and that the Styx might still be available, 
in which we might plunge and become invulnerable. It may 
seem marvelously desirable that all doubts and difficulties and 
mental conflicts should be shut out from the people of God, 
that all divisions and distractions should be prevented in the 
Church, rather than they should first be permitted, and then 
that an infallible tribunal should be required to remedy them, 
it being more desirable and convenient to prevent the evil than 
to remedy it. It may seem desirable and convenient to exclude 
all possibility of sin by making each one of us infallible in him- 
self — having an infallible judgment in himself, and so needing 
no appeal elsewhere. It may seem desirable and convenient 
that there should be no death after life, and no hell after death, 
for the punishment of the lost. These and a thousand things, 



i 



448 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

as infallible kings as well as infallible bishops — ^infallible mag- 
istrates as well as infallible priests — infallible parliaments of 
statesmen as well as infallible councils of churclies. These 
and a thousand things may seem desirable and convenient, 
but this is no proof that they really exist ; and our present 
question is not as to the desirableness or cmivenience of infal- 
lible authority, our question is as to the reality and existence of 
such an authority. Have you, I asked, have you a proof of 
the reality and existence of such an infallible tribunal in your 
Church ? 

He was evidently conscious that he had failed thus far, and 
that he must advance something more definite and logical on 
a point of so much importance. He said, after a pause, that 
it was impossible to suppose that God would have left the 
Church without such an infallible tribunal, such a tribunal as 
could settle every contention, breathe calm into every soul, 
still and speak peace to every ruffled spirit, and give assurance 
and safety to all. He was a God of love, whose love for his 
people was infinite. He was a God of mercy whose compas- 
sion rested upon all His poor, w^eak and suffering people, and it 
was impossible to have a just sense of His loving and merciful 
nature, and suppose He could have left us without such an 
infallible authority as seemed so useful, salutary, and necessary. 

I answered this by saying that it seemed to me irreverent 
toward God to say that he ought to have given us any thing 
— that it was illogical to argue that he must have given 
it to us because we think it desirable or convenient. We 
ought never to argue as to what God ought to have done, or 
what God could have done. We ought only to argue as to 
what God has done. 

And I endeavored to illustrate the fallacy of such process 
of reasoning, by saying, it might seem to us only consistent 
with the mercy and love of our merciful and loving God, to 
invest us with an infallible judgment ourselves, so as to be 
able to protect ourselves from error — it might seem only con- 
sistent with the mercy and love of our merciful and loving 
God to remove sin so far from us, in fact to remove it from our 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 449 

world, so as to spare us from the possibility of temptation or 
of sin — it might seem too, only consistent with the love and 
mercy of our loving and merciful God to close the abyss of 
Hell, and thus seal up forever the mouth of that destroying 
gulf, that so none might ever perish within its torments and 
its horrors. But, I argued, that however all this might seem 
only consistent with the love and mercy of God, we knew by 
plain and universal experience, that there is a fallacy in all 
such reasoning ; for we know, by melancholy experience, that 
we have a liability to temptation and sin and death, and that 
we have not an infallible Judgment. I said that all such 
reasoning was not only illogical but irreverent. 

He seemed to feel this ; and when I perseveringly pressed 
him to advance some othgr argument or evidence as to the 
existence of an infalHble authority in the Church of Rome, he 
was com.pelled to confess that he was not prepared with other 
proofs — that he had thought these sufficient. It remained, 
therefoi'e, only for me to press on him that he ought not to 
peril his soul's health and salvation on what he supposed to be 
an infallible authority, when he was unable to prove the reality 
of such an infallibility ; and all the more when these were the 
Holy Scriptures — the God-inspired volume — which were 
necessarily infallible, and which he admitted to be infallible. 

Our conversation ended here. 

It will here be observed that in this method of reasoning 
on the subject of infalhbility there has been no argument from 
the Holy Scriptures — no passage, no promise, appealed to, as 
justifying the Church of Rome in a claim to infallibility. 
There are indeed certain texts — two in number — which are 
appealed to by the unlearned, but seldom by the learned. 
One is that place where our Lord says — " The gates of Hell 
shall not prevail against my Church," and the other, where 
He promised to His apostles — " Lo ! I am with you always, 
even to the end of the world." 

The first is in Matt. xvi. 18. Our Lord states that He 
would build His Church upon a rock, and adds — " The gates 
of Hell shall not prevail against it." The word " Hell " in 



450 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

tlie original, is " Hades," the term usually applied to express 
the grave or death — the invisible world. As when Jacob 
says, his gray hairs would be brought down in sorrow to the 
grave. This word is the same ; and when it is said of our 
Lord, that he was not to be left in Hell to see corruption, it 
plainly alludes to the resurrection of His body, which was not 
to be left in the grave so long as to become corrupted. " The 
gates of Hell," therefore simply means " the gates of the 
grave," in other words, it is a figurative expression of the 
power of death ; and our Lord means that death or the grave 
shall never prevail against His Church — that it shall never 
cease, shall never die — shall live and last forever. 

This is the true promise of our Lord to His Church, a 
promise of perpetuity, a promise of immortality. And it is 
just like the promise of final safety and preservation to His 
faithful people. He says — " They shall be mine in that day 
when I gather up my jewels." He says — " I will raise them 
up at the last day." He says — " I will receive them unto 
myself, that where I am there they may be also." He says 
all this as to the final result — " They shall never perish, 
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand," but in 
saying this He does not promise that they shall never through 
life fall into any error, or into any sin — in saying this He does 
not promise that they shall be infallible, but only that they 
shall be brought through their errors and their sins, brought 
through repentance and faith, to their final salvation. And so 
is the promise respecting His Church. It shall never cease, 
but shall live and last forever. It is invested with perpetuity 
and clothed with immortality. It is not that no sin and no 
error shall ever reach it. It is not that infallibility shall be 
her privilege, but that death and the grave shall never prevail 
against her. 

The second text is in Matt, xxviii. 20. Our Lord desires 
His apostles to go forth and preach the Gospel to the world ; 
and for their comfort and encouragement, He promises to be 
with them to the end — " Lo, I am with you always to the 
end of the world." This was evidently a promise to sustain 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 451 

them amid the troubles, sorrows, difficulties, disappoint- 
ments, and persecutions wliicli they were destined to suffer. 
And it impHes that He by His Spirit would be with them to 
sustain and keep them. And that for the encouragement and 
comfort of all that, hke them, are sent forth to preach the 
same gospel through all after ages. He has graciously added 
that He would be with them to the end of the world. 

But this does not imply infalHbility. Indeed it was after 
that that Peter fell into his error, noticed in Gal. ii. 11, where 
" he was to be blamed," as having " dissembled" and " walked 
not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel r It, there- 
fore, could not have implied personal infallibiHty to him, either 
in conduct or in teaching, and much less to any individual 
person of later times. The words, however, can not imply 
infallibility, for the very same promise was made to all Chris- 
tian persons : " when two or three are gathered together in 
my name, there am I in the midst." And yet no one would 
think of inferring that every prayerful assembly of two or 
three Christians is infallible ; and yet, if the promise to be 
with the apostles implies an infallibility either against sin or 
error, then the promise to be v/ith all prayerful Christians who 
assemble in the name of Christ, will involve an infallibility 
against sin and error, and so all Protestant assemblies for 
worship would be as entitled to this privilege of infallibility as 
those of the Church of Rome. The simple truth is, that the 
promise of our Lord is not a promise of infallibility, but a 
gracious and loving promise to all who preach His gospel, that 
whatever be their trials, difficulties and dangers, He will be 
with them to sustain and comfort and bless them. 

But, as has been already stated, these texts are seldom cited 
unless by the unlearned ; at least, such has been my expe- 
rience. When conversino^ with the learned of the Church 
of Rome, I have found them speak of the promises to the 
Church as a whole. They seemed to take them in the mass, 
so to speak, and to argue that they seemed to imply some 
wonderful privilege, like exemption from error, in other words, 
like infallibility. 



452 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

On one occasion of this kind, I replied, that whatever were 
the words of promise to the Church of the New Testament, as 
seeming to imply a privilege of this nature, the words of prom- 
ise to the Church of the Old Testament, to the Jewish priest- 
hood, seemed to involve still loftier privileges. Every text, I 
said, cited in the New Testament, that tended to imply author- 
ity or infallibility to the Church of the New Testament, was 
eclipsed far away by stronger and clearer texts of the Old 
Testament, that seemed to imply more fully and certainly the 
authority and infallibility of the Church of the Old Testa- 
ment ; and, I argued, that if the texts usually cited, prove the 
infallibility of the Christian Church, much more will the texts 
of the Old Testament prove the infallibility of the Jewish 
Church. All these cited by the Romanists are far more than 
paralleled and over-balanced in force and clearness by those 
which might be cited by Jews in favor of the infallibility of 
the Jewish Church. For example — it is said of the Jewish 
priests that they were to be the teachers of the statutes of the 
Lord, Lev. x. 1 1 ; — that they were to teach Jacob the law and 
Israel the judgment of the Lord, Deut. xxxiii. 10 ; — that they 
were to keep knowledge, and that the people were to seek 
the law at the mouths of the priests, for that they were the 
messengers of the Lord of Hosts, Mai. ii. 7 ; — that in every 
controversy, in every matter too hard for the judgment of the 
people they were to come to the priests, who should determine 
the matter, and who were specially named and appointed to 
judge and decide in all controversies, Deut. xvii. 3. 2 Chron. 
xix. 8 ; — that " they shall teach my people the diflference be- 
tween the holy and profane, etc., and in controversy shall they 
stand in judgment," Ezek. xliv. 24 ; and " by their word shall 
every controversy and every stroke be tried." — Deut. xxi. 5. 
All this is language in reference to the Jewish priesthood far 
stronger than any ISnguage cited in reference to the Christian 
ministry. All this is language implying far more power, au- 
thority, judgment, as the privilege of the Jewish Church, than 
is implied in any passage cited as applicable to the Christian 
Church, and therefore, if the feebler and weaker texts cited by 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 453 

Romanists, will prove the infallibility of the Roman Churcli, 
then will those stronger and clearer texts prove the infallibility 
of the Jewish Church. 

This argument becomes stronger still when we consider the 
wonderful promises made to the Jewish Church and Jewish 
priesthood, to the effect that ,God himself would dwell in the 
midst of them, and bless them, and keep them — that He was 
there by his special presence in the Holy of Holies — that he 
had constituted them to be a Sanhedrim or council to judge 
all causes and controversies in Jerusalem — that he had given in 
the midst of them a standing oracle, the Urim and Thummim 
which they could at all times consult — When we consider 
that God had given such great privileges, and promised such 
vast blessings to the Jewish Church, we can not but feel on 
contrasting them with the few feeble texts cited by Romanists 
in behalf of their Church, that if these latter, weak and feeble 
as they are, involve an infallibility, thus much more will those 
stronger and clearer texts prove the infallibility of the Jewish 
Church. How triumphantly would the Romanists boast, if 
they could, like the Jews, cite passages to prove specially that 
their priests were appointed by God to determine every hard 
matter and decide every controversy — if they could, like the 
Jews, cite the statement that their priests were specially named 
as having the law, and that the people were to seek it at their 
lips — if they could, like the Jews, prove that they had the 
shekinah of the divine presence in the Church of St. Peter, 
and the Urim and Thummim in the Vatican of their popes — 
if they could, like the Jews, find clear evidence that the seventy 
cardinals constituted a divinely appointed sanhedrin or council 
for the determining every controversy ! If indeed the advo- 
cates of the Church of Rome could do this, they might seem to 
be doing something, they might seem to be proving their claim 
to infallibility, and yet, after all it would be only seeming to 
do so, for it would be only placing themselves on a level with 
that Jewish Church which was any thing but infallible, 
which was charged by God himself with apostasy, rebel- 



454 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

lion, idolatiy, and wliich in the end rejected His Son Jesus 
Christ ! 

This argument I pressed strongly and in much detail on my 
opponent, as an answer to all the feeble texts which he was 
classing together, as implying or involving infallibility for the 
Eoman Church. 

He replied — as I had anticipated — with the statement, that 
as the texts cited by him involved the infallibility of the 
Christian Church, so the texts cited by me implied the infalli- 
bility of the Jewish Church ; that he believed and held, and 
all the ablest divines of Rome believed and held, that the Jew- 
ish Church was infalhble — that the texts cited j)roved it. And 
he added that his argument was, that when God had invested 
the Jewish Church with such infallibility, how much more 
may we infer that he has also invested the Christian Church 
with equal privileges, and, especially, infalhbihty. " My argu- 
ment," he said, " assumes the infallibility of the Jewish 
Church, and on that I found the conclusion in behalf of the 
infallibility of the Christian Church." • 

In reply to this, which is a favorite argument with modern 
Eomanists, I reminded him that the Jewish Church could not 
have been infallible, for every form of open and secret idolatry 
was committed by the Jews in the days of Ahab and his suc- 
cessors — that the promises of God upon which the claim of 
infallibility was based, were promises made to the v/hole house 
of Israel, and could not imply infallibility, for no less than ten 
of the tribes fell off and worshiped the calves of Dan and 
Bethel — that besides the sin of idolatry, they are charged by 
God himself with apostasy, leaving him for Baal and Ashter- 
oth and the gpds of the heathen, worshiping in the groves 
and high places, and under the green trees, giving even their 
children to Moloch — that they had so utterly fallen from God 
that he gave them into the hands of their enemies, and the 
temple was burned, and the sacred vessels carried away, and 
Jerusalem destroyed, and the people sent into captivity — that 
after all this, when he sent His Son Jesus Christ, the long- 
promised and long-expected Messiah, the very sanhedrim, 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 455 

priests, people, all rejected, crucified, and killed him. The 
whole history of the Jews, from their call to their dispersion, 
proves that the Jewish Church was not infallible. 

My friend answered that their rejection of Jesus Christ only 
proved that they were not then infallibJe. Jesus Christ was 
then present, and in him the infallibility resided, and when he 
was among them, it was He, and not they, who posssessed the 
infallibility. 

I said that I was aware of that view, as ft was urged by 
Bossuet in his conference with Claude — that it was sufficiently 
ingenious, but that it failed in this, that my argument referred 
to the preceding rebellions, idolatries and apostasies with 
which God himself, in all his prophets, arraigns the Jewish 
Church. I asked him whether such charges of rebellion, 
idolatries and apostasies were consistent v/ith the possession of 
infallibility. 

He naturally answered that he could not think that infalli- 
bility was consistent with rebellion, apostasy and idolatry. 

This brought our argtiment to a close, with the remark on 
my part, that he must give up the notion of the infallibihty of 
the Jewish Church, and, consequently, he must abandon his 
argument founded thereon, in favor of the infallibility of the 
Christian Church. 

Infallibility has never been formally claimed by the Church 
of Rome, but it is advanced by all her advocates. Whenever 
their arguments from Holy Scripture fail them, they fall back 
on her claim to infallibility. This circumstance always forces 
this question prominently upon us. 

I was once brought to this subject by a very astute man, 
who had failed in his argument. 

As soon as he fell back on his assertion of the infallibility 
of the Church, I stated that I was prepared to consult with 
him the utterances of this infallibility, if he would but tell me 
where it was to be found. He had asserted the existence of 
an infallible tribunal or court of appeal from the language of 
Scripture, and it was necessary that we should know this 
court, that we might bring om* case before it ; so I asked him 



I 



456 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

where I was to find its decisions — that when Paul appealed to 
C88sar he well knew where his appeal was to be heard — that 
inasmuch as he, my friend, had referred his case to some 
court of appeal, which he declared to be infallible, it was an 
absolute necessity that I should know where that court of ap- 
peal was to be found, that I might follow the appeal and hear 
and know its decision on the question. I felt this was but 
reasonable. 

He replied that he was aware there was a difference of 
opinion as to the seat of this court, on the locality in which it 
was situated, and on the judge who determined the appeal. 
Some, he was aware, held that it was in the Pontiff as suc- 
cessor of St. Peter — an opinion to which he confessed he 
could not agree — that others held that it was in general coun- 
cils as representative of the episcopacy of the whole Church, a 
view which coincided with his own. He added that when 
there was a general council, especially when presided over by 
a Pope, or by a legate from the Pope^ and when the decisions 
received the approval of the Pope, he thought there could be 
no fair exception against such decisions being received as in- 
fallible. 

I therefore said, " you acknowledge that some of the best 
and ablest theologians of your Church, deny the infallibility 
of general councils, even, under the circumstances you pro- 
pose ; you admit that they refuse to recognize these as an 
infallible court of appeal. They name another altogether dif- 
ferent, even the papal chalice itself ; now, as both they and 
you follow your own private judgment in the matter, I see not 
why I may not follow mine also, and, with so many of your 
best and ablest theologians, refuse submission to the court 
which you suggest." 

He said at once that their unhappy divisions created a dif- 
ficulty, he could not remedy it, he could deplore it. 

I then said that supposing I consented to carry the appeal 
to the court of tribunal of general councils, as he proposed, I 
was anxious to know what it was that constituted the essen- 
tials of a general council and how many there were. 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 457 

He replied that a general council was supposed to be an as- 
sembly of all the bishops of Christendom, a sort of parlia- 
ment, or convocation of all the bishops of Christendom, but 
he could not answer positively, as to the number, as there was 
much difference among their theologians, some asserting there 
were sixteen, some fourteen, some twelve, and some only- 
eight. 

I said in return to this, that so wide a difference of opinion 
on so grave a question was very serious. You differ among 
yourselves as to how many councils are infallible as being gen- 
eral councils ! I added that for myself I had no doubt what- 
ever, for if a general council is a council of all the bishops of 
Christendom, assembled to consult and decide on the ques- 
tions before them, there never has been a real general council 
in the history of the Church. 

He asked me what I meant. 

I replied that all the eight councils, usually called the first 
eight general councils, were held in the Eastern and not in 
the Western Church — in the Greek and not in the Latin 
Church. And that, although it was beheved that in the first 
Council of Nice, there were some few bishops from the West, 
yet it is very certain that at the second of Constantinople, 
at the third at Nice, and the fourth at Constantinople, al- 
though all counted as general councils, there was not a 
single bishop from the Churches of Western Europe, and it 
is most uncertain whether there were any either by per- 
son or by proxy in any of the others ! and thus these so- 
called general councils were not general councils at all, as 
representing Universal Christendom^ inasmuch as the West- 
ern Churches were altogether unrepresented ! 

He answered that he was not disposed to dispute that 
fact, for that there were so many hundreds of bishops pre- 
sent at these councils, that on that account, even if on no 
other, they might well be regarded as general councils, even 
though they might not actually realize the ideal. 

I said that we had scarcely entered upon the real diflSculties 
of his hypothesis, which placed the Court of Appeal in the in- 

20 



458 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

fallibility of these assemblies. I had no wish to assign my 
reasons for my unfavorable opinion of the way in which every 
thing was managed in them. But I was obliged to ask on what 
principle some of these councils are received, and some of 
them rejected. I could myself, I said, reject them all, be- 
cause not one of them responded to the ideal of a general 
council, but I could not comprehend the principal on which 
in the Church of Rome some are received, and some are 
rejected. It could not be the respect and reverence due to 
the number of bishops who were present, because those 
councils which were remarkable as having been attended 
by the largest number ever known in the history of the 
Church, are rejected and condemned by all writers in the 
Church of Rome, while some that were attended by compar- 
atively few, are received and recognized as general councils ! 
On what principle was this done ? The council of Ariminum, 
with 400 bishops (a. d. 359), and that of Carthage with 562 
bishops (a.d. 411), are both of them rejected, while the Coun- 
cil of Constantinople with only 150 bishops (a.d. 381), and 
that of Ephesus with only 200 bishops (a. d. 481), are re- 
ceived as general councils ! ISTow if general councils are to 
be held as infallible, it seems necessary to determine with 
great accuracy, what constitutes a general council, seeing that 
the number of bishops does not do it. 

My friend was evidently perplexed at this startling fact. 
He seemed not to have been aware of it, and like many others 
had been carried away by some ideal of councils, and hearing 
of such assemblies, had been at no pains to ascertain why 
some and not others were pronounced infallible, by being 
pronounced to be general. 

I therefore called his attention to another difficulty, and 
that was how the judgment of the council was to be taken, 
whether by votes or otherwise. The importance of this will 
appear from the fact, that in some councils, as that of Con- 
stance (a.d. 1414), they voted by nations, and not by bish- 
ops, that is, each nation had one vote, no matter how many 
or how few were the bishops that belonged to it, so as that a 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 459 

nation with only ten bishops in the council, had as effectual a 
vote as a nation with one hundred bishops, and thus the ten 
bishops' vote went as far as the hundred bishops' vote. In 
otlier councils they voted otherwise. 

And then we may ask, whether the question is to be deter- 
mined by the majority, especially by a bare majority, as in 
the council of 564 bishops, who divided so closely that there 
v/ere 278 on the side of the Donatists, and 286 on the part of 
the Catholics — thus giving only a bare majority of eight in 
favor of the truth ! But this was but the beginning of diffi- 
culties, as sometimes the decision seems to have been the 
wrong way, as in the Council of Sileucia, where 145 bishops 
voted for Arianism, and only 15 voted for the truth. This 
raises the question as to whether the infallibility goes necessarily 
with majorities, as in this case Arianism was decreed, and the 
Trinity condemned by an overwhelming majority. Nor did T 
see how we could expect it otherv/ise, as there are evils insep- 
arable from all such assemblies, especially in ancient times, 
when long and distant journeys were dangerous. The bishops, 
whose age gave them wisdom from experience, and those 
whose piety made them love attendance on their flocks, and 
those whose gentleness recoiled from the stormy discussions 
of councils, and whose bodily infirmities all cons]3ired to keep 
them from the councils, were absent, while the younger, more 
violent, more factious, and self-sufficient were able to accom- 
plish the long and perilous voyage, and take part in discus- 
sions congenial to their passionate years. In such councils, it 
was the violence of youth, rather than the experience of age, 
determined every question, and it is therefore we are plunged 
into another inextricable difficulty by the fact that these coun- 
cils have decided the same question in opposite and different 
ways. " One general Council at Constantinople, consisting of 
about 368 bishops, though others say there were only 350, 
maintained the worship of them, yet as soon as this was known 
in the West, how active soever the see «f Rome was for estab- 
lishing their worship, a council of about 300 bishops met at 



460 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Frankfort under Charlemagne, which condemned the Nicean 
Council together with the worship of images." Burnet, Art. 
xxii. The same spirit of contradiction prevailed afterward, 
when the two councils, held at Constance and at Basle, pro- 
claimed the authority of councils to be superior to that of 
popes, while at the same period the two other councils, that 
were convened at the Lateran and at Ferrara, declared the 
authority of popes to be superior to that of councils ! Con- 
tradictions like these are a simple confutation of their claim to 
being infallible. 

Having pointed out these difficulties, I said that before we 
could consent to appeal to the infallibility of councils, it would 
be necessary to determine what constitutes a general council 
— whether there ever has been really a general council — how 
the infallible decision is to be arrived at, whether by majorities 
or otherwise — whether a small or bare majority can be sup- 
posed to carry the infallibihty with it — whether the majority 
ha\'ing voted the wrong way deprives it of its infallibility — 
whether seeing that councils have decided in opposite and dif- 
ferent ways, we have any means of determining which decision 
is the voice of infallibility. 

That my friend, though an astute and generally a very adroit 
arguer on the infallibility of the Church, was perplexed at 
these inquiries is a matter of no surprise to me. I have ob- 
served some of the ablest advocates of Eome, on subjects on 
which they believed themselves unassailable, completely de- 
feated by being taken in flank, instead of debating the question 
in their accustomed way. My friend was literally helpless, and 
he could not help acknowledging that the subject was beset 
with difficulties which he had not anticipated. Councils were 
beset with difficulties and contradictions, popes were entangled 
in difficulties and w^orse than contradictions, while popes were 
opposed to popes, and councils were opposed to councils, and 
councils were against popes, and in their turn popes were 
against councils, so thaj: all seemed to us as a chaos of inextric- 
able entanglement, and amid, around, and above them all, was 



i 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 461 

that true infallibility, where was no contradiction — the infalli- 
bility of the God-inspired book, the Holy Scriptures. This 
voice of infallibility is possessed by all our Protestant Churches. 
To this we appeal in all our controversies, and to this — 
THE ONLY TRUE INFALLIBH^ITY— we invite our op- 
ponents. 



APPENDIX. 



THE AlfTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 

The Question, Where was the Church before the Eeformalion answered — The Ar- 
gument of Development considered — The new Creed of Pope Pius lY. — Its new 
Articles of Faith detailed — ^The Origin and Novelty of each Article illustrated — 
And the Novelty of the Eeligion of Eome demonstrated. 

It is scarcely possible to conveise with members of the 
Church of Rome on subjects of religion, without hearing much 
respecting the antiquity of their Church. It is supposed by 
many among them to be a point on which she is unassailable, 
especially when she is brought into comparison with the 
Church of England or any of the Protestant Churches. 

In every class of social life, as in every part of the world, 
the question is often proposed to us : 

Where was your Church before Luther ? 

In Ireland, this question is usually answered by another — 
namely : 

Where was your face before it was washed ? 

The method of reply has certainly more of point than of 
elegance, and suits the lively temper of the people far better 
than some dry and erudite rejoinder. But, however, inele- 
gant or vulgar it may be deemed, it contains the germ of the 
true answer — the fittest and most efiective answer to the argu- 
ment supposed to be involved. 

The Church of England, as also the other Protestant 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 463 

Ghurclies, were, before the Reformation, in tlie same place as 
they occupy since that event. And the difference is not in 
the locality, nor in the identity, but in the fact — the very 
intelligible fact, that they had been unreformed and are now 
reformed — had been corrupted and are now purified — had 
been overlaid with errors and abuses, and are now cleansed. 
This is the real and only difference ; it is not in their iden- 
tity but in their state — not in their location, but in their 
condition. 

When our Lord, as is narrated in the Gospels, entered the 
Temple at Jerusalem, we read, that he found it in a state 
wholly unbefitting its original and holy purposes ; he found 
it practically a market-place, where there was buying and sell- 
ing, and traflSc, and money-changing. . And although all this 
was introduced for the convenience of the worshipers, that 
they might have oxen, and sheep, and doves, which they could 
thus easily purchase for sacrificing, and that they might find 
no inconvenience from the want of money-changers to facili- 
tate such purchases ; yet, much as might be said of its con- 
venience, it was regarded by our Lord as a perversion from 
its original design, and an abuse of its original use. It is 
written that he made a scourge of small cords ; drove from 
the Temple those that bought and sold ; overthrew the tables 
of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 
and He told them that it had been designed as " a house of 
prayer," and that they had made it " a den of thieves." In 
all this He did not remove a pillar, nor change a column, 
nor destroy an ornament, nor close a window, nor impair 
the foundation. He left the Temple itself unchanged ; He 
only removed the corruptions and cast out the abuses. Just 
so, the Temple after the Reformation was the same as before 
that event. 

This was the Reformation of the sixteenth century. 

When, in like manner, we repair any aged or venerable 
cathedral — when time has impaired its stability, and years 
have generated an accretion of decay, and the moss has cov- 
ered its aged walls, and the mold has traversed its noble 



464 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

arclies, and the tendrils of the ivy have clasped its lofty pin- 
nacles, and time is weakening its stately columns, and the 
worm is eating into its crumbling roof — when, anxious to pre- 
serve the venerable pile, we remove the moss that defiles it, the 
ivy that injures it, and the decay that is destroying its beauty 
and marring its usefulness, we are surely not changing the 
identity, or the purposes of the edifice — we assuredly are not 
removing its foundation, nor varying its architecture, but we 
are renovating the whole, and restoring the goodly fabric to 
its ancient beauty. 

Such was THE Eeformation of the sixteenth century. 

That great event founded no new Church, and established 
no new religion in the world. As the very term implies, it 
was only a purifying the Church and religion of Christ from 
the corruptions and abuses which time and circumstances had 
introduced. It was emphatically a Reformation of the Church 
and of religion — ^it was not the invention of any thing new, 
but the reforming of the old. 

This is the just, the only just view of the series of events 
connected with the Reformation ; and to attempt to meet it 
by talking about the antiquity of the Church, or the antiquity 
of the error, or the antiquity of the religion — to attempt to 
meet it by thus talking about the antiquity of the system, is 
very little to the purpose. Buddhism and Hindooism, and the 
classic mythologies of Greece and of Rome, and the super- 
stitions of Egypt, may claim a still higher and remoter an- 
tiquity. Mere antiquity in itself is nothing. And it were 
infinitely more satisfactory, and certainly more to the purpose, 
to prove that a Church is true than that it is old ; and to show 
its religion to be conformable to the Holy Scriptures than that 
it is of ancient standing. 

This argument, however, has lately undergone considerable 
change, and its new phases effectually annihilate all that was 
of any importance in its original form. The new phase is 
that which has received the name of development. The 
idea involved is, that originally in the Christian Church — in 
the Church of Christ, as taught by Himself, and as instructed 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 465 

by His Apostles, and as built up by the primitive Christians — 
that in this, there was not the manifestation or development 
of the practices of the Church of Rome — that there were only 
the grains, or seeds, or germs, discernible in the early Church, 
from which in after-times these doctrines and practices have 
manifested and developed themselves ; in other words, that 
transubstantiation, image- worship, Mariolatry, prayers to saints, 
w^orship of relics, purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, indulg- 
ences, supremacy of Rome, and all her other peculiar doc- 
trines and practices, are now in a state and condition widely 
different from primitive times — that now they are extended, 
enlarged, magnified, whereas formerly they existed only in the 
seed, or the bud, or the germ — that now they constitute the 
great and grand essentials of the Church of Rome, whereas, 
in primitive times, they w^ere in abeyance, held back, con- 
cealed, vailed, reserved, and unseen, and unknown, and unbe- 
lieved, except by the initiated few — that thus all these doc- 
trines in their present state are novel, at least different from 
former times ; in other words, they w^ere now an expansion, 
an enlargement, an exaggeration, a development of the past ; 
or at least they are^ an unvailing of what was concealed be- 
fore, and a teaching of w^hat was untaught before. They as- 
sert, indeed, that the Church of Rome now holds nothing but 
what she held from the beginning ; but only that she holds 
such things in a different way, and in a different degree, and 
to a different extent — that she held such things in primitive • 
times in the germ, and that she holds them in the present 
age in their development ; they were then the acorn, and are 
now the gigantic oak. 

It may be seen that there is in the essence of this argu- 
ment, all that neutralizes the old argument founded on the 
supposed antiquity of these doctrines and practices. It shows 
that they all have undergone a change, and that they are now 
in a state very different from formerly. Some may call this 
novelty, others may give it the fanciful name of development. 
It certainly is an admission of some change — a strange ad- 
mission for a Church, for which its advocates claim the attri- 

20* 



466 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

biites of unchangeableiiess, and the prerogative of infalli- 
bility. 

The simple truth is, that the old claim to antiquity — the 
old argument, that her doctrines and practices were those of 
primitiv^e Christianity, has been exposed and annihilated by 
the progress of modern research. Her advocates have been 
necessitated to retreat, and now endeavor to hide their retreat 
under the name of — development ! 

ISTor could they do otherwise than retreat fi'om this argu- 
ment of antiquity. The advocates of Protestant Christianity 
laid before the world the three ancient creeds of the Churches 
— the Apostles' Creed — the IS'icene Creed — the Athanasian 
Creed. They have shown these to have been the only Creeds 
of the primitive Churches, and they are acknowledged as 
such by all the writers of the Church of Eome. In these, the 
behef of the primitive Churches — in these, which embody all 
the articles of the faith of Christ as then received, and be- 
lieved, and professed — in these there is no allusion whatever, 
no allusion however remote or shadowy, to any one of those 
doctrines which constitute the essence of the Church of Rome. 
These three creeds — the creeds of primitive Christianity con- 
tain no allusion to modern Romanism, no allusion to transub- 
stantiation, Mariolatry, invocation of saints, worship of relics. 
Purgatory, sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, supremacy of 
Rome, etc. — but pass them by as if they had been utterly 
unknown, and unheard of, and unbelieved. 

And the Church of Rome has felt the importance of all 
this argument, and she has compiled a new creed — a new 
CREED ! Having examined the IS'icene Creed, and having 
seen that her new and favorite doctrines were not embodied 
in it, she went boldly to the work and has actually inserted 
them into it — ^has actually appended twelve new articles to 
this ancient creed to make it speak in her favor ! This she 
did in the year 1564. 

The following are the additional articles, thus newly invent- 
ed, and then first inserted in the IS'icene Creed. 

I. " I most steadly admit and embrace apostolical and eccle- 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 467 

siastical traditions, and all other observances and constitu- 
tions of the same Church. 

11. " I also admit the Holy Scriptures according to the 
sense which our Holy Mother the Church has held and does 
hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and inter- 
pretation of the Scriptures ; neither will I ever take and inter- 
pret them otherwise than according to the unanimous con- 
sent OF THE fathers. 

HI. "I also profess that there are truly and properly seven 
SACRAMENTS of the ncw law instituted by Jesus Christ our 
Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not 
all for every one ; to wit, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, 
penance, extreme unction, orders, matrimony ; and that they 
confer grace ; and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and 
orders, can not be reiterated without sacrilege. 

IV. " I also receive and admit the received and approved 
CEREMONIES of the CathoHc Church, used in the solemn ad- 
ministration of the foresaid sacraments. 

v. " I embrace and receive all and every one of the things 
which have been defined and declared by the Holy Council of 
Trent, concerning original sin and justification. 

VI. " I profess hkewise, that in the mass there is offered to 
God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and 
the dead, and that in the most holy sacrifice of the eucharist, 
there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, 
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and that there is made a conversion of the w^hole substance of 
the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the 
wine into the blood ; which conversion, the Cathohc Church 
calls Transubstantiation. 

VII. " I also confess, that under either kind alone, Christ 
is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. 

VIII. " I certainly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that 
the souls therein detained, are helped by the suffrages of the 
faithful; likewise that the saints reigning together with 
Christ, are to be honored and invocated, and that they offer 



468 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

prayer to God for us, and that their relics are to be held in 
veneration. 

IX. " I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the 
Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other saints, may be 
had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be 
given to them. 

X. " I also affirm that the power of indulgence was left by 
Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most whole- 
some to Christian people. 

XI. " I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, ApostoHc, Roman 
Church for the Mother and Mistress of all Churches ; 
and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Eome, 
successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of 
Jesus Christ. 

XII. " I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other 
things delivered, defined, and declared in the sacred canons 
and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council 
OF Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all 
things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church has 
condemned, rejected, and anathematized. I do, at this present 
freely profess and sincerely hold this Catholic faith, without 
which no one can be saved, and I promise most constantly 
to retain and confess the same entire and inviolate, with God's 
assistance, to the end of my life. 

Such are the novel doctrines of the Church of Eome. 
They were not contained in any ancient creed — ^in any primi- 
tive creed of the primitive Churches, and therefore the Church 
of Rome has been obliged to invent a new creed to contain 
them, or rather she has interpolated one of the ancient creeds 
by the addition of these twelve novel articles. To this new 
compilation has been given the name — the expressive name 
of the creed of Pope Pius IV. It certainly is not the creed 
of Chrisfs Church, 

And this new creed — this creed of the Roman Church, was 
first compiled in 1564! They sometimes ask — where was 
your Church before Luther ? — where was your Church before 
Henry VIII ? One might suppose that their own creed was 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 469 

of some liigli and remote antiquity, when they propose such 
questions ; although Luther was dead and buried, and Henry 
VIII. was gathered to his fathers, many years before this rehg- 
ion or creed of the Church of Rome was compiled ! 

But let us descend to details. 

It has often been argued against me by the advocates of 
Rome, that if we have rejected her peculiar doctrines on ac- 
count of their supposed novelty, we ought to be able to specify 
the precise time when each novelty w^as introduced into the 
Church. 

I have always closed at once with my opponents on this 
argument, and have undertaken to prove the precise date of 
every doctrine. I have declared my willingness to do this, 
while at the same time I felt it was not necessary for my po- 
sition. A man is not to be supposed to have lived from the 
beginning of the loorld, merely because he can not prove the pre- 
cise day of his birth. And a doctrine is not to be deemed 
to have been from the beginning of Christianity, merely be- 
cause we can not specify the date of its invention ; indeed, 
we are warned that men " shall privily bring in damnable 
heresies," and we are fore-cautioned that they shall " creep in 
unawares^^'' and we are reminded that it was "while men slept 
the enemy sowed the tares." These words imply that we 
should not be able to detect precisely the origin of error. But 
although we may be unable to ascertain the exact moment 
that gave birth to the error, yet we may be able to determine 
with exactitude the time when the error was formally adopted 
and recognized and avowed by the Church of Rome — when 
the error was no longer a floating and unauthorized opinion, 
but became adopted into the canons, and embodied in the 
formularies of that Church. 

These may be considered seriatim, 

I. Tradition. 

The first article is on Tradition. It has been justly said of 
Tradition, that it is appealed to as the origin of every false 
religion, and for the support of every error engrafted upon 



470 EVENINGS ^yITH THE ROMANISTS. 

true religion. It was the argument of the advocates of the 
Greek and Roman mythology in defense of their system — it 
was the argument of the Jewish Pharisees in support of the 
continuance of their law — it was still the argument of the 
Brahmin in behalf of his Hindooism, and of the Buddhist in 
support of his Buddhism — it is the argument of all error 
against Christianity. 

The doctrine, therefore, of the Church of Rome respecting 
Tradition can not be regarded as novel. It is as old as hea- 
thenism itself. But the adoption of the principle that tradi- 
tion is to be placed on a level with the Scripture — that tradi- 
tionary doctrines and practices are to be " received and vene- 
rated with equal piety and reverence," wdth the doctrines and 
practices taught in Holy Scriptures — the adoption of this 
principle into the Church of Rome is undoubtedly a nov- 
elty. It never w^as affirmed till the Council of Trent in 1545. 
In all previous councils — in all those that had been held from 
the beginning of Christianity, it never before was asserted that 
the traditions of the Church w^ere to be " received and ven- 
erated with equal piety and reverence" with the Holy Scrip- 
tures of God. And this novel article was then and there 
adopted for the first time in the history of Christianity, and 
then and there adopted for a purpose. They could not confute 
the arguments of the Reformers from the Holy Scriptures. 
They had nothing to advance but antiquated opinions which 
they said were traditionary : and to justify this, they framed 
and adopted this principle — ^this novel article of feith in 1545, 
and inserted into their creed in 1564. 

The same may be said of her insertion of the apocryphal 
books into the canon. They never were received as inspired 
by the Jewish Church ; they were on the other hand rejected 
as such, as Josephus testifies ; they never were admitted into 
the canon of Holy Scripture, by the primitive Church, and 
they are excluded from each and every ancient list of canon- 
ical books, and it was never till the Council of Trent, in 1545, 
that these apocryphal books were received into the canon, and 
thence the article was inserted in the new creed in 1564, and 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 471 

was so inserted for no better reason than the notion that they 
gave some color to one or two of the practices of the Church 
of Rome. 

n. The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. 

This second article of the creed of Rome pledges its mem- 
bers to interjDret the Holy Scriptures in accordance with the 
teaching of that Church, and only according to the unanimous 
interpretation of the Fathers. 

This article thus bears on its face the fact that it was not 
composed or received till after the Fathers, that is, till after 
the primitive Church had passed away ; and it goes on the as- 
sumption that the Fathers were unanimous in such interpreta- 
tion, whereas there is no fact more certain than that upon all 
those portions of the sacred volume, upon which there is diver- 
sity of interpretation at the present day, there was as great and 
wide a diversity among the Fathers ; so that if the members 
of the Church of Rome are bound to interpret Scripture only 
according as there is a unanimous interpretation among the 
Fathers, they will be necessitated to abandon all interpretation 
whatever, inasmuch as there is no unanimity among the 
Fathers. The celebrated text, " Thou art Peter, and upon this 
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it," is a remarkable illustration of this : for, as 
the Fathers differed among themselves as to the true purport 
of these w^ords, so no Romanist, according to this article of his 
creed, has any right to give to these words any interpretation ; 
and the discourse of our Lord in John vi. is another example, 
for the council itself has placed on record a statement that the 
Fathers were divided in their interpretation of it. The truth 
is, that the Fathers were as divided as ourselves, and there 
never existed among them any unanimity of interpretation. 

This article was invented in order to counteract the reading 
of the Scriptures, now getting into circulation through the 
discovery of printing, and in order to counteract the use which 
the Protestants made of the sacred volume. It never was 
known or heard of in the Church of Christ till invented at the 
Council of Trent, and inserted in this creed in 1564. 



472 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

ni. The seven sacraments. 

There are two sacraments received among reformed Chris- 
tians. The Church of Rome holds that there are seven, by 
adding Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Ex- 
treme Unction. 

Confirmation is practically a useful custom among us, but 
has not the essentials of a sacrament. Penance was a custom 
adopted among the heathen, and is not peculiar to Christians, 
and certainly has not the nature of a sacrament. Repentance 
indeed, is a Christian grace, but not a sacrament. Orders is 
also held among us, but it has not the essentials of a sacra- 
ment. Matrimony commenced in Eden, and can not be a 
sacrament of the gospel, being long anterior to it. Extreme 
Unction is an abuse — a superstitious abuse of the rite of anoint- 
ing the sick, originally used for the miraculous healing the 
sick according to the words, " they anointed with oil many 
that were sick and healed tliemr It was in order to their 
miraculous healing. When the age of miracles ceased, this 
rite should also have ceased, but when superstitious persons 
saw that it wrought no good to the body, they sagely con- 
cluded that perhaps — ^possibly — may be — it did some un- 
known good to the soul ; and thus it continues in the Church 
of Rome. 

By means of these five pretended sacraments, added to the 
two real sacraments ordained by Christ, the Church of Rome 
has completed the number of seven. And yet that number 
seems unfortunate as being of all the most calculated to ex- 
hibit the novelty of the article, and the diversity of opinion 
alike. Ambrose, with a host of antiquity, declares that there 
are only two sacraments. Isidore avows his belief in only 
three^ Alexander declares for four^ an author named Cyprian 
asserts five to be the true number, of which one is the washing 
of the feet ! Durandus declares for only six^ rejecting matri- 
mony as not a sacrament, and Peter Lombard teaches that there 
are seven. 

This Peter Lombard Avas the first who ever taught that there 
were seven sacraments ; he lived in the twelfth century. It 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 473 

was not adopted, however, in the Church of Rome for three 
centuries afterward. This took place at the (council of Florence 
in 1439, from which it was adopted by the Council of Trent 
and inserted in this creed. 

IV. Sacramental ceremonies. 

It was a very strange idea to insert a clause into a creed 
making sacramental ceremonies an article of faith. It was the 
more strange as the ceremonies are confessedly of modern 
growth. The anointing with the oil of the chrism in Confirm^ 
ation was no part of the original rite. Confession was 
originally public, and it was not till the fifth century that, 
owing to some awkward confession, which affected the moral 
character of one of the priests then officiating, it was sup- 
pressed, lest other similar confessions should lead to the publi- 
cation of similar scandals. Private confession, or as it is 
called Auricular Confession^ was then introduced. Private 
penances were never used till the seventh century, and their 
commutation for alms begun only in the ninth. As for the 
ceremonies connected with Orders^ they were altogether un- 
known till the seventh century : and are not found in any 
ancient ordinal. The ceremonies connected with Matrimony 
need not be noticed, as in all countries they are variable. 
Those which accompany Extreme Unction were invented in 
the twelfth century, and were not settled till the fifteenth. 
Those connected with Baptism and the Lord's Supper are 
admitted by all parties to be many of them novel. As long 
as such arrangements are not unscriptural they may well be 
borne with, but it seems an intolerable thing to constitute 
them an Article of Faith. This was neverdone till this novel 
creed was compiled in 1564. 

V. Original Sin and Justification. 

The doctrines of the Church of Rome on these points are 
not liable to the charge of novelty. They made their appear- 
ance at the beginning. And St. Paul wrote his Epistles to 
the Romans and to the Galatians in order to confute and sup- 
press them. 

These doctrines were never avowed by any Council or any 



474 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

authority till the Council of Trent. Indeed this seems ad- 
mitted ; for the article of the Creed requires the belief, not of 
these doctrines as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, but only as 
defined by the Council of Trent. At least the creed demands 
no more ancient authority ; and certainly they were never em- 
bodied in any creed till 1564. 

VI. The Mass and Transubstantiation. 

And first, for the Mass. The practice of private masses, 
that is, masses for the priest alone, without a congregation, 
was unknown for many centuries ; and when it was first in- 
troduced, it was condemned by the Council of Metz in the 
ninth century, and did not become general till the twelfth ; 
and the doctrine that the Mass was a true, proper, propitiatory 
sacrifice for sin, was never adopted by any Council till that of 
Trent, in 1545, from which it was transferred to this creed. 

And then, for Transubstantiation. The first book ever 
written in which the word " Transubstantiation" occurs, was 
in the tenth century ; and a certain Bishop of Autun has had 
the honor of the invention. This is admitted by our oppo- 
nents ; but they hold that the doctrine which that word repre- 
sents was of earlier origin. And this is true ; but it is appar- 
ent also, that the first book ever written in support of that 
doctrine, was that written by Paschase Radbert in 831. And 
this is admitted by all the ablest writers of the Church of 
Rome ; as also that the first time in was adopted formally 
and proclaimed authoritatively by that Church, was at the 
Council of Lateran in 1225. 

VII. Half-communion. 

The practice of Half-communion, or communion in one 
kind, in the bread without the cup, is of very modern origin ; 
some notice of its history will be found in one of the preced- 
ing conversations. All the writers of the Church of Rome 
acknowledge that it was not received before the twelfth cen- 
tury. " It appears," says Delahogue, the author of the theo- 
logical class-book of the Roman Catholic College of May- 
nooth ; " that from the days of the Apostles until the twelfth 
century, the custom prevailed, that the Eucharist should be 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 4*75 

received by the laity m both kinds, as is observed in the 
Greek Church at the present day ; but from the twelfth cen- 
tury the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful 
in one kind only was gradually confirmed." 

This practice thus gradually became general, thougb with 
great opposition in some countries, till the Council of Con- 
stance in 1414, when, for the first time in the history of the 
Church, it was formally adopted. 

VIII. Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and Veneration of 
Relics. 

This article contains three particulars. 

First. Purgatory. 

The nature and character of the doctrine of Purgatory is 
stated in the preceding conversations. Our present object is 
its origin ; and it must at once be admitted that it is very 
ancient, having bad its origin in the opinions of the heathens, 
who preceded the introduction of Christianity ; when, there- 
fore, the heathen in the time of Constantine made a formal 
profession of Christianity, not from any real reception of its 
truth, but in a desire to please the imperial court, they retained 
this and other of their heathen notions of religion. The intro- 
duction of a belief in Purgatory in the Christian Church thus 
was in the fourth century ; it exhibited itself openly in the 
fifth, and seems to have been first taught publicly by Pope 
Gregory I., about the year 600. Monks and Friars soon 
found it an ample source of wealth, and therefore naturally 
became its most enthusiastic promoters. They found the 
gold of the alchemist in the fires of Purgatory ! 

Fisher, a Bishop of the Church, of Rome, states, " the Latins 
did not receive the truth of this matter at once, but by little 
and little ; nor indeed was faith in either Purgatory or Indulg- 
ence so necessary in the primitive Church as at present." 
This simple confession shows it was not formally received at 
first. Indeed it was for the first time formally pronounced a 
doctrine of the Churcb of Rome at the Council of Florence in 
1439. 

Secondly. Invocation of Saints. 



476 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

The original of this practice is shown in the preceding con- 
versations as found in the old mythology ; and as such, being 
only a baptized heathenism, regarded and denounced as such 
by all the wise and good of the primitive Church. It is, there- 
fore, clear that there is nothing to sanction it in primitive 
Christianity ; and this is admitted by the learned of the 
Church of Rome. The Jesuit Salmeron confesses, that " it 
would have been a hard thing to impose on the Jews. And 
it would have given occasion to the Gentiles to think a multi- 
tude of gods was imposed upon them, instead of the multitude 
of gods which they had forsaken." And Delahogue says, " If 
many monuments of the invocation of saints are not to be 
found in the first and second centuries, that ought not to 
appear strange, for as persecutions were raging, the pastors of 
the Churches were more anxious to instruct and prepare the 
faithful for martyrdom than to write books." And thus the 
fact is admitted, however they labor for explanations, that this 
practice formed no part of pure and primitive Christianity. 

It was a practice, however, that was introduced by the con- 
verts from heathenism, and so became very general, though 
never authoritatively sanctioned, but was adopted formally for 
the first time by the Council of Trent, in 1545. 

Thirdly. The Veneration of Eelics. 

The impositions connected with this gross superstition have 
long made all good men ashamed of it, as a disgrace and 
scandal to Christendom. Its origin was superstition ; its 
support, priestcraft ; and its end, avarice. 

IX. Worship of Images. 

The learned Erasmus states, that " even to the times of St. 
Jerome those who were of the true religion would sufier no 
image, either graven or painted, in the Church ; no, not even 
the picture of Christ ;" and Delahogue admits that it was not 
allowed for three hundred years, lest it should look like the 
custom of the heathens, and seem to give a sanction to their 
images. This admission is sufllcient to prove it was no part 
of pure and primitive Christianity. CorneUus Agrippa, 
another of their authors, honestly states — " The false religion 

4 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 477 

of the heatlien has infected our religion, and brought images 
and pictures into the Church, with many ceremonies of ex- 
ternal pomp, none of which were found among the first and 
true Christians." 

Unhappily, in order to multiply the number of professed 
converts, the heathen were allowed to retain their ancient 
images. In many instances images of the heathen gods were 
baptized by the names of Christian saints, and were thus 
adopted into the Church. To restrain this evil, the Council at 
Constantinople, at which there were 338 bishops, condemned 
the use of images in the year 754, and ordered them to be re- 
moved from the churches ; but shortly afterward, under the 
unholy influence of Irene, the practice was formally sanctioned 
and adopted at the Council that met at Nice, and at which 
350 bishops were assembled, in the year 786. This was after- 
ward condemned at the Council of Frankfort in 790, by 300 
bishops. It was finally adopted by the Church of Rome, at 
the Council of Trent, in 1545. 

X. Indulgences. 

All the writers of the Church of Rome acknowledge in- 
dulgences as a modern invention, that is, that they were un- 
known in the primitive Church, and had their origin about the 
twelfth century. 

Cardinal Cajetan states, " If there could be certainty arrived 
at about the commencement of indulgences, it would avail us 
much in finding the truth, but there is no authority of Scrip- 
ture or ancient fathers, either Greek or Latin, that gives us 
any knowledge of them. And Alphonsus a Castro acknowl- 
edges, " There is nothing in Scripture less opened, and about' 
which the ancient fathers have written less, than about indulg- 
ences, and it seems that the use of them came but lately into the 
Church." These admissions seem sufiicient to prove the nov- 
elty of this article of the creed of Rome. Indeed, though very 
general in that Church from the twelfth century, and although 
they led to the first outbreak of the Reformation, yet they 
never were defined and sanctioned by any council till that of 
Trent in 1545. They were long before employed by the 



I 

478 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

popes for purposes of a financial nature, but tliey were never 
adopted formally and authoritatively by tlie Church of Rome 
till that council. 

XL The supremacy of the Church of Eome. 

That this clause of the creed involves a positive untruth as 
a matter of historical fact, has been already shown in the con- 
versation on the pretended supremacy of the Church of Rome. 

That the Bishops of Rome should have been regarded as 
more than ordinary bishops is not improbable, considering 
that Rome was the capital city of the Western Empire, as 
were the Bishops of Constantinople, on account of its being the 
capital of the Eastern Empire. But as to either of them pos- 
sessing authority or supremacy over the other bishops of 
Christendom, the thing never was thought of till the close of 
the sixth century, and then the claim was advanced, not by 
the Bishop of Rome, but by the Bishop of Constantinople ! It 
was he who first claimed this supremacy, and so little was the 
rest of Christendom prepared for it — so little were the bishops 
of Rome prepared for such a claim on the part of any bishop 
in the world, that Gregory L, the then Bishop of Rome, de- 
clared the assumption of such a claim was a mark of the An- 
tichrist ! He says in one of his letters — 

" Saint Peter was not called a Universal Apostle, and yet, 
lo ! my fellow-priest John seeks to be called the Universal 
Bishop ! O tempora, O mores ! Europe is now exposed a 
prey to the barbarians, and yet the priests, who should lay 
themselves in the dust, and weep and roll themselves in ashes, 
are seeking in a spirit of vanity, and boasting themselves in 
new-found and profane titles." And in another epistle he 
says, " I have advertised him of that haughty and superstitious 
title of Universal Bishop, and that unless he reform it, he can 
have no place with us, for if there be any bishop so called, then 
must the universal Church fall to the ground, if he who is the 
universal bishop fall into error ; may such folly never befall 
us !" And again, " I speak boldly, whoever calls himself, or 
desires to be called by others. Universal Bishop or priest, is 
the forerunner of Antichrist ^ Such was the language of 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 479 

Gregory the Great, who was at that time the Bishop of Rome. 
He httle thought of the claims of his successors. 

When, however, Phocas murdered the Emperor, the next 
Bishop of Rome claimed this very title of Universal Bishop, 
and Phocas applied all his imperial power to enforce the 
claim. 

XII. The Council of Trent. 

This clause of the Creed refers to the Canon3 of Trent, and 
is for that very reason an essentially novel article of faith. It 
could not have had existence before the close of that Council, 
and indeed, first found its place in the Creed of 1564. 

Such are the twelve new articles of Faith — the articles 
which are to be found in no one ancient creed of any one of 
the Churches of Christ — the articles which are the distinctive 
peculiarity of the Church of Rome, and the essence of her re- 
ligion — the twelve new Articles of Faith, which have been 
added to the ancient Nicene Creed, and form now the Creed 
of the Church of Rome. It was a Creed compiled many 
years after Luther was laid in his grave, after Henry YIIL, 
was gathered to his fathers, and thus was by many years more 
novel and modern than the Reformation ! 



THE END. 



285 Broadway, New York, ^ 
October, 1855. y 



b 



ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS' 



The Task, Illustrated, 

The Task, a poem by William Cowper. Illustrated br upward of fifty 
elegant designs by Birket Foster. Printed on the finest tinted 
paper. Small quarto, extra cloth, full gilt, $4 60. Turkey mor- 
occo, $6 00. 
This most elegant gift-book we have had printed for us in Edinburgh, Scotland, 
with the utmost care, and on the finest linen paper. A portion of the edition 
has been sold in England. The London Art Journal says of it : 
*' We wonder what the bard of Ouse would say to this exquisite edition of his 
favorite poem, could he see it. Such a lover of nature as he was, how his eye 
would have lighted up at Mr. Foster's delicious bits of landscape — simple, truth- 
ful, and poetical as the lines they illustrate, * * * We have often had oc- 
casion to commend Mr. Foster's landscape compositions, but we have never 
seen his pencil more charmingly evinced than on this volume," 

Henry's Commentary. 

A new edition, on large type. With Introductory Essays by Eev. 
Dr, Alexander and Kev. E. Bickersteth. 5 vols, quarto, sheep. 
$15 00. 

Dr. Doddridge says of Henry: " It is perhaps the only Commentary so large that 
deserves to be entirely and attentively read ttirough. There is much to be 
learned in this work in a speculative, and still more in a practical way." 

Home, in his "Introduction to the Study of the Bible," says of THIS EDITION : 
" The London quarto edition of 1811 is very correct. The text of this impression 
has been followed in the beautifully-printed edition of 1827, to which is prefixed 
an introduction by the Rev. E. Bickersteth." 

Our edition is printed from the London stereotype plates. 

The Christ of History ; 

An Argument grounded on the Facts of his Life on Earth. By John 

Young, A.M. 12mo. 75 cents. 

" We have rarely seen so much original thinking compressed within so narrow 
limits as we find in this small volume. No one can look into it without feeling 
himself in contact with a master mind; and no one can thoroughly possess him- 
self of its luminous and conclusive reasonings without being conscious of having 
received an important addition to his intellectual stores. The work is as modest 
as it is original and profound ; and unless we greatly mistake, it is destined to 
awaken as much interest in the religious world as any work that has come from 
the press for many years." — Argus, 

The Priest, the Puritan, and the Preaclier. 

By the Rev. J. C. Ryle. 16mo. 75 cents. 

"The title of the volume is derived from the three first articles, named : ' Bishop 

Latimer ;' ' Baxter and his Times ;' ' Life and Labors of George Whitfield.' 

His usual evangelical vein pervades them, and the sentiments are clothed in 

his pointed and animated style." — Chris. Intel. 



^§^-?<K^ 



-~v>^<^^^^ 



CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 



Kich and Poor, and other Tracts for the Times. 

By the Rev. J, C. Ryle. 16mo. ^5 cents. 
'Tlie reader can hardly open at any one of these pasrcs without finding some- 
thing addressed personally to him, which it will be difficult for him ta get out 
of his mind. It is one of those books which is destined to- shed a light wher- 
ever it goes." — jV. Y. Observer. 

Tales from English History. 

Illustrated. 16mo. T5 cents. 
"The selection of topics embraces some of the most striking incidents in English 
history, and the sketches are well drawn. They combine much of the attract- 
iveness of fiction,, with truthful and instructive reality. It fe a pleasant and in- 
structive book for young readers." — Preshyterian. 

The Southern Cross and the Southern Crown ; 

Or, The Gospel in New Zealand. By Miss Tucker. Tdustrated. 
16mo. ^5 cents. 

"This A^olumeis full of the most interesting details, illustrating at once the depth" 
of human depravity, the debasement and cruelty of Paganism, and the power 
of the Gospel to remodel the human soul after the Divine image. It is an im- 
portiint contribution to our missionary literature, and is fitted to quicken the 
zeal of the church in the missionary enterprise." — Argus. 

The Prophets of the Eestoration. 

A Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. By the Rev. T. 
Y. Moore. Svo. $ 

A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 

By F. S. Sampson, D.D., late Professor of Oriental Literature in the 
Union Theological Seminary, Prince Edwards, Yirginia. Edited 
by R. L. Dabney, D.D. 8vo. $ 

M*Cosh on the Divine Goyernment, Physical and 
Moral. 

A new edition, revised and re-written. 8vo. $2 OC^. 
*;,.* In order to give the author's corrections and alterations, many of which are 
of great importance, we have had this work all re-stereotyped. It has now re- 
ceived the author's final revision. 

Scotia^s Bards, 

The choice prodnctions of the Scottish poets, with brief Biographical 

Sketches. 8to. Illustrated. $2 00. Gilt extra, $2 50. 
*** Two large editions of this work, in a sumptuous and somewhat costly form, 

having been sold, we have been induced to issue it in plainer style, and at a 

muchlower price. 




Lectures to Young Men. 

Delivered in London. Series of 1855. $1 00. 
Uniform with this, the series for the year 1854. $1 00. 



-^^^>^<^^ 



CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 
Nellie of Truro. 

By the author of " Vara, or the Child of Adoption." 
This beautiful tale, by a popular writer, is destined to excite much attention. It 
is written with all that fascination of style and graphic power of delineation 
that rendered its predecessor, " Vara," such a favorite. 

A Geography of tlie Chief Places mentioned in the Bible, 

and the principal events connected with them. 

Adapted to Parental, Sabbath School, and Bible Class Instruction. 

By Charles A. Goodrich. Illustrated with Maps. 25 cents. 

Drummond on the Parables. 
8vo. $1 B^. 

Kate Kilborn. 

By the author of " Jeanie Morrison." 15 cents. 

Florence Egerton ; 
Or, Sunshine and Shadow. 16mo. T5 cents. 

Aunt Edith ; 

Or, Love to GtOD the Best Motive. By the author of " Florence 

Egerton." 18mo. 60 cents. 

Memoirs of Dr. Kitto. 

Sva. 

Guthrie^s Christian's Great Interest 
Bible Light from Bible Lands. 

By the Rev. John Anderson. 12 mo. 

Ashton Cottage ; 
Or, The True Faith. Illustrated. 16rao. 60 cents. 
" This beautiful volume, finely illustrated, is designed to impress lastingly on the 
minds of youth, that a life of usefulness and Christian living is the only true and 
happy one. It is written in a style of gi-eat purity and simplicity, and is highly 
entertaining, while it imparts the most valuable instruction, which can not foil 
to leave itsfruits of good in the youthful heart." — Spectator. 

Evening Hours Vvdth my Children ; 
Or, Conversations on the Gospel Story. Illustrated with twelve 
superb quarto plates. $1 25. Colored, $1 "75. 
In splendor of illustration, largeness of type, and general beauty of mechanical , 
execution, this book stands at the head of juvenile gift-books. The publishers 
have honored their profession in bringing it out." — Lit. Messenger. 
This is a large, handsome Bible story-book, with twelve illustrations, bold and " 
life-like, illustrating the scenes in oiir Saviour's history, from his birth in the 
^ manger to his death on the cross." — Christian Herald. 



^^^^S-^-^^r— 



CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 

The Footsteps of St. Paul. 

By the author of the " Morning and Night Watches.'^ 12mo. 
Illustrated. $1 00. 

"Tlie 'Footsteps of St. Paul' is tbe title of an able and instructive work, present- 
ing a consecutive history of the life, labors, and teachings of the great Apostle. 
It Interweaves, in the narrative, all the direct disclosures of the Acts, the inci- 
dental intimations of the Epistles, all tbe outside information extajit, and many 
conjectural statements derived from a comparison of different parts of Scripture. 
But he has written it in an animated and graphic style, and imbued it with a 
fine spirit. It leaves a strong impression on the reader's mind. It is copiously 
illustrated with maps and engravings, and is every way a scholarly performance." 
— Evangelist 

" The Carters have published a multitude of good books, but, unless we greatly 
mistake, this will be reckoned an[K>ngthe best of them." — PuHtam> Recorder. 

By the same author. 

I. The Words of Jesns. 

I6mo. 40 cents. 
" This admirable little volume illustrates and applies some of the precious utter- 
ances of the blessed Saviour, in language chaste, simple, affectionate, and urgent, 
enlightening the thoughts, exciting- the affections, subduing the passions, guid- 
ing the soul, like the star of Bethlehem, to tbe meek and lowly Saviour." — 
Watchman. 

II. The Mind of Jesus. 

16mo. 40 cents. 

III. Morning and Night Watches. 

16mo. 60 cents. 
"A precious volume of religious truth most pleasingly and scripturally presented 
for the comfort and edification of the people of God" — Observer. 

IV. Family Prayers. 

IGmo. 75 cents. 
"Simple, evangelical, earnest, and well-adapted to prove a devotional help." — 

CJiristian Herald. 
"Direct, fervent, and comprehensive." — Evangelist. 

V. The Woodcutter, and The Exiles. 

18mo. 50 cents. 

YI. The Great Journey : 

A PlLaRIMAGE THROUGH THE YaLLET OF TEARS TO MOUNT ZiON, THE 

City of the Living GtOD. Illustrated. 16mo. 50 cents. 
Family Prayers. 

By the Rev. John Swete, D.D. 16mo. 60 cents. 

Family Expositions of John and Jude. 

By the Rev. Edward Bickersteth. 16mo. 60 cents. 
d 



Hf CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 

The Rich Kinsman, 

The History of Ruth the Moabitess, by Stephen H, Tyng, D.D. 

16mo. $1. 

' The author presents this work in the hope that it will be found adapted to en- 
lighten the minds of the young in some of the great subjects of Scriptural in- 
struction. . . . The author has been long impressed with the feeling that neither 
commentaries nor sermons have yet made that simple and practical use of the 
fullness of Scripture truth for which it is adapted — perhaps he might say for 
which it is designed. The young mind certainly can be interested in the word 
of God, as a book fall of attraction as well as full of truth. Whoever can be 
made in any degree the instrument of leading to this result, by brinjring out to 
view the real attractions of Scripture, confers so far an invaluable benefit upon 
others.'" — Extract frora the Preface^ 

The Truth and Life. 

A Series of Discourses. By Bishop Mcllvaine, of Ohio. 8vo. $2. 

" We have seldom met with a more admirable volume of Sermons than the one 
now lying before us. * * * The subjects are varied, but in all there is the 
same clearness, and fullness of Gospel truth. * * * We can assure our readers 
that there is a freshness and power pervading the work, which is most delight- 
ful to find in this age of iiimsy sentiment and idealistic abstractions," — Banner. 

The Saints' Everlasting Rest. 

By Richard Baxter, The OXLY COMPLETE EDITION ever 
published in the United States. One volume royal 8vo. $2. 

"There are no religious works which have had, next to John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's 
Progress," so extensive, increasing, and continued circulation, as those of liichard 
Baxter. ' The Saints' Rest' is eminently a favorite with Christians, and has been 
richly blessed. The volume in general use is an abridgment, well executed, of 
the original, and is not as much as one-half of its compass. However well con- 
densed, an abridgment can not retain and exhibit all the merits of the original, 
and very many of the lovers of the smaller volume will hail and embrace the 
opportunity of obtaining the original work, in the present neat and acceptable 
form. — Christian In telligencer^ 

Discourses on Truth. 

By J. H. Thornwell, D.D., President of the South Carolina College, 

Columbia, S. C. 12mo. |1. 
" The Ethics are of the loftiest standard, breathing a pure theology, and informed 
by a sound psychology, and presented in a form of compacted logic. It is a 
tonic for both mind and heart to read these able expositions of the moral sys- 
tem of Christianity. * * * To those who think, it will be found a dish of strong 
meat, the inward digestion of which will give vigor to both the mental and 
spintual man." — Wdtc7i)7ian and Obser'oer. 

Fritz Harold ; or, the Temptation. 
By Mrs. Sarah A. Meyers. 16mo. Illustrated. 60 cents. 

May Dundas ; or, Passages from Young Life. 

By Mrs, Thomas Geldart. Illustrated. 16mo. '76 cents. 
The Christian Patriot. 

A Memoir of William Wilberforce. 
This new Memoir of the Christian, the patriot, and philanthropist, la from the pen " 
of a gifted American lady, and will be read with intense interest by all classes 
ja of readers. 

xi>T b 




iJf CARTERS* PUBLICATIONS. 

The Autobiograpliy and Eeminiscences of the Kev. 
Wm. Jay. 

2 vols, royal 12mo. $2.50. 

" Few names a e so extensively known in the Christian communities of Great 
Britain and tha United States as that of William Jar. His ' Morning and Evening 
Exercises' is in the great majority of Christian families. The Autobiography is 
written in a style of great simplicity and pleasantness. The remiuisc^ences by 
Mr. Jay of prominent'individuals with whom he was well acquainted — as John 
Newton, Eichard Cecil, Eobert Hall, William TVilberforce, and others, are graphic 
and entertaining, and replete with anecdote." — Christian Intelligencer. 

" This is a dehghtful work. The autobiography is a simple story of his life, in letters 
addressed to his children, beginning with bricklayer boy at Beckford"s Abbey, 
whose sweet face atti'acted the attention of Cornelius \\'inter, and led to the 
bringing out of the 'boy preacher,' and ending with the venerable patriarch of 
Bath, whose name and writings were known and loved all over Protestant 
Christendom."' — Watchman. 

" As an autobiography, this will do to go along with that of Hugh Miller." — Journul. 

By the same author. 

I. Morning and Evening Exercises. 

A new edition in 4 royal 12mo vols. $4 . 

'• This edition of the Exercises is in four large 12mo volumes. It is remarkably 

well printed in large, clear type, and on cfear, white paper, so that the old and 
those of weak sight can enjoy the good thiugs prepared for them by one of the 
most pious and best writers which the world has produced." — Christ. Advocate. 

II. Female Scripture Characters. 

12mo. $1. 

" By all sincere Christian wom.en, the world over, this volume will be regarded as 
a'spiritual treasure." — Presbyterian. 

Paley^s Evidences of Christianity, 

With Xotes and Additions. By Charles Murray Js'airne, M.A. 
12mo. $1.25. 

" It would be a work of supererogation, at this late day, to dwell on the peculiar 
excellences of Paley's treatise on the Evidences of Christianity. It is not prob- 
able it will ever be'superseded. Its learning, its exactness, its wonderful clear- 
ness of thought, its logical force, are incomparable. ******* -phe Amer- 
ican editor has fortified the points in which Paley has failed, and, by his addi- 
tional matter, has unquestonably furnished the best, as weU as the safest edition 
of Paley extant," — Pre-shyterian. 

" The Editor of this work, we he>i:ate not to say, is a man of extraordinary intel- 
lect and acquirements, and he has done what it may safely be said that few are 
capable of doing, has given additional attraction and value to Paley's Evidences 
of Christianity.^ The introductory article, entitled ' Claims of Divine Eevelation,' 
could never liave been the production of any other than a master-mind." — Puri- 
tan Recorder. 

'•As one of the inipregnable defences of the historical verity of the facts of Chris- 
tianity, the work of Paley stands unrivaled and complete. * * * The notes i 
and additions of Prof ^STairne make it more valuable than any edition hitherto . 
published. The labors of Chalmers, Hill, Wardlaw, Campbell, Alexander, Hitch- 
cock, Miller, Birks, and many others, are here put under contribution." — Pres- 
hyierian of the West. 

C 



^ 



fe:.^>u»>^s^?>^^_ ^j^^j^^j 



iZ^^^^i-^— 



•^^i. 



CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 

The Acts and Monuments of tlie Church ; 

, Containing the History and Sufferings of the Martyrs, wherein is 
set forth at large the whole race and course of the Church, from 
the primitive ages to these later times. By John Fox. A new 
edition, carefully revised and corrected by the Rev. W. Hobart 
Seymour. Royal 8vo. Illustrated. 

From the Rev. John Angel James. 
"Your new and cheap edition of Fox's original book needs no recommendation 
of mine; it deserves additional value from the present efforts, prospects and 
hopes of the Papacy. Every Protestant ought to know and value this affecting 
and di-eadful illustration of the effects of Popery ; if, however, my recommenda- 
tion be of any worth, I most cordially give it." 

From Rev. W. M. Hetherington, D.D. 
" At a time like the present, when the Papal system is again threatening to re- 
sume its aggressive movements, it must be of great importance that its real 
character should be known. That character, in all its treachery, falsehood and 
persecuting cruelty, is nowhere better delineated than in the graphic pages of 
the memorable Martyrologist." 

History of the Bible^ 

From the Creation of the World to the Incarnation of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. By the Rev. John Fleetwood, D.D. 8vo. 

Select Letters and Eemains 

Of the late Rev. W. H. Hewitson. 2 vols. 12mo. $2. 

Hours of Christian Devotion. 

From the German of Tholuck. With a Preface by the Rev. H. 
Bonar. 16mo. 60 cents. 

Twenty Pictures from Switzerland. 

By Csesar Malan. 60 cents. 

The Miscellaneous Works of the Kev. Matthew 
Henry. 

2 vols. Royal 8vo. 
"'The lips of the righteous,' said Solomon, 'feed many,' and in our own times 
especially is the assertion -verified by the published relics of persons so denom- 
inated. * * * * Few individuals have been more distinguished for their 
endeavors to advance the Divine honor by such means, than Matthew Henry. 
His name, because of his productions as an author, is deservedly great in Israel; 
and in the gates thereof do his works praise him. His course on earth termi- 
nated long ago, but not until, in a far more exalted sense than the racers in the 
Grecian games, he had delivered a torch to survivors — a torch which guides to 
Heaven ; and which has not only remained unextinguished, but still Jlames with 
increased and cheering brilliance. * * * * The habit of sprightly and apt 
allusion to Scripture facts, and the use of Scripture language, which Mr. Henry 
diligently cultivated, has not only enriched, but unspeakably enlivened his 
miscellaneous writings. * * * * nis diction, always expressive, is often , 
felicitous; and, though it makes no pretension to elegance, is both nervous and 
forcible. * * * jijg allusions and imagery, in like manner, always please and . 
always edify; the former, because they are generally scriptural ; the latter, be- 
cause, like the parables of our Lord, they are derived from the most common ' 
occun-ences."— jRe^. J. B. Williams. 



CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 
Follow Jesus. 

' By the author of " Come to Jesus," " It is I," &c. 18mo. 25 cents. 

" We can heartily commend this little work. It is full of Christ, and whoever 
devoutly ponders its pages cannot fail to be inspired with new zeal in following 
the jfootsteps of him w^ho was meek and lowly in heart." — Presbyterian. 

The Works of the Kev. Edward Bickersteth. 

16 vols. $10. 

"They are, in respect to temper, • style, and spirit, models of religious writing; 
and their collection in so readable a form is a boon to the lovers of good read- 
ing." — N. Y. Evangelist. 

The Forum and the Vatican ; 

Or, Thoughts and Sketches during an Easter Pilgrimage to Rome, 
By Newman Hall, author of " Come to Jesus," <fec. 12mo. $1, 

" We have read various books of travels in Italy, but we can assure our readers 
that the volume before us will interest them almost as much as if they had never 
peeped into Italy or Kome before." — Ch. Xews. 

The Select Works of the Kev. Thomas Watson ; 

Comprising his celebrated BODY of DIVINITY, in a series of Lec- 
tures on the Shorter Catechism. Royal 8vo. $ 

" These catechetical lectures of the late Eev. Mr. Thomas "Watson, I have read 
over, together with some sermons annexed to them ; and, since my testimony 
is desired concerning them, I do hereby declare, that — though I will not under- 
take to justify every expression or sentence in them, or in any human writing — 
I find them, in the main, agreeable to the doctrinal articles of this church, and 
unto the Westminster Assembly Confession of Faith and Catechisms ; and I be- 
lieve that, through the blessing of God, they may be profitable unto the e-difica- 
tion of all that read them with an honest desire to know and do the will of God. 
"1692. William Loeimee." 

"We, whose names are subscribed, having seen the testimony of our worthy 
brother, Mr. William Lorimer, after his perusal of this book, doubt not but it 
may be of use to many, — as the former writings of Mr. Thomas Watson have 
been; and, with that desire and hope, we recommend it to masters of families 
and others. 

" William Bates, Matthew Mead, John Howie, Daniel Bui-gess, Nathaniel Oldfield, 
John Hughes, and twenty-one other clergymen." 

Memoirs of the late Kev. Josiah Pratt. 

8vo. $1.50. 

The Minister's Family. 

By the Rev. W. M. Hetherington. 12mo. 

Prof. Eadie's Critical Exposition of Colossians. 



CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 

The Family at Heatherdale. 

By Mrs. Colonel Machay. Illustrated. 

Select Works of the late Eev. Thomas Boston, 

Minister of Ettrick. With a memoir of his life and writings. 

Royal 8vo. $ 

From the Rev. Dr. Guthrie, Edinburgh. 

"It seems absurd in any man to be recommending the works of Thomas Boston, 
but I have no hesitation in saying that they should have a place almost next to 
the Bible, in every Scotchman's library." 

A Manual for the Young. 

Being an Exposition of Proverbs I.-IX. By the Rev. Charles 
Bridges. 50 cents. 

A Body of Divinity, 

Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are explained and 
defended ; being the substance of several lectures on the Assem- 
bly's Larger Catechism. By Thomas Ridgely, D.D. 2 vols, royal 
8vo. % 

Dr. John Pye Smith., in speaking of Dr. Eidgely and his Body of Divinity, says: 
"I revere him, and honor his gkeat avork, believing it to be calculated to be of 
important benefit to Christians in general, as well as ministers and theological 
students/' 

From Bev. J, W. Masaie. 
" I hail with joy the publication of the present elegant and cheap edition of Dr. 
Eidgely's work, and most earnestly recommend the same to all serious and 
thinking Christians. The work stood very high in the estimation of my highly- 
gifted and early religious instructor, the Ilev. I)r. Wardlaw, of Glasgow." 

Jeanie Morrison ; 

Or, THE Discipline of Life. By the author of the " Pastor's Fam- 
ily." Illustrated. 16mo. 75 cents. 

"The design and plan of this volume are excellent, and the execution graceful 
and fascinating. Portions of it are exceedingly touching. The reader is charmed 
along its pages amid smiles and tears to its happy close. The wise training of a 
daughter, the strange vicissitudes of life, the beauty of youthful piety in life and 
death, the blessed rewards of doing good, the way in which God disciplines the 
soul for usefulness and Heaven : these are among the many beautiful lessons 
which the volume contains. Few books of rarer interest and attraction have 
appeared from a toei iug press." — Ev. Telegraph. 

The Pastor's Family. 

By tbe autl r of " Jeanie Morrison." 18mo. 25 cents. 

*'"What an i. Dretr ilng title; and yet what a history of joys and sorrows, trials 
and comf but jine and shade, is gathered within its gilded covers. It is a ' 
painting ■ 1 wb j there are many copies, variously colored, but all real and 
^^ truthful in ne i . story of ministerial life." — Christian Advocate. ->A 



^'^ CARTERS' PUBLICATIONS. 



Addresses to the Young. 

By Alexander Fletcher, D.D. 16mo. 60 cents. 

Eemains of the Eev. Wm. Howels. 

16mo. '75 cents. 

The Brother and Sister ; or^ the Way of Peace. 

By the author of " Grace Dermott." 18mo. 60 cents. 

" This is a charming story for children, delightfully told, and inculcating an excel- 
lent moral." — FuHtan Recorder. 

Vara ; or, the Child of Adoption. 

The Fifth Thousand, with four new Illustrations. 12mo. $1. 

" It is a deeply interesting story. We hope every novel-reading young lady -will 
procure and attentively read it. She will be made wiser and better by so doing, 
and will find it contains all the interest of the wildest romance." — Fresh. Herald. 

*' The writer is equally at home amid the picturesque scenes of the Pacific Isles, 
and the more familiar events of an American dwelling.'" — SoiUhern Baptist. 

" A charming story: we read it with unbounded satisfaction/' — Lit. Standard. 

" One of the most charming books we have read in a long time, written in a most 
attractive style, and incufcating valuable Christian lessons." — Religious Herald. 

" It is not often we become so deeply absorbed in a volume as we did in this 
book." — St. Louis Presbyterian. 

Tender Grass for Little Lambs, 

By the Rev. C. W. Bolton. "With eight illustrations. Square. 50 cts. 

"A very successful effort to simplify great truths to the capacity of little chil- 
dren." — A 



Words to Win Sonls. 

Twelve Sermons preached A.D . 1620-1650, by eminent divines of 
the Church of England. 12mo. V5 cents. 

"These are admirable discourses— eminently practical and experimental— forming 
an excellent specimen of the best preaching of the Church of England more 
than two centuries ago." 

More Worlds than One ; 

The Creed of the PniLosornER and the Hope op the Christian. 
By Sir David Brewster. 16mo. 60 cents. 

'With a gracefulness of rhetoric that imparts a charm to the researches of science, 
the learned author here examines and refutes the recently-started theory that 
there are no other inhabited worlds than our own, a theory' which the writer re- " 
gards as opposed to reason and Divine revelation. It is a beautiful treatise, and ' 
will richly reward perusal.'"— iV^. I". Observer, 
h 



— ^V5?-f<^'i 



CARTERS* PUBLICATIOJ^'S. 

Gratitude : an Exposition of the CIII. Psalm. 

By the Rev. John Stevenson, author of "Christ on the Cross: an 
Exposition of the XXII. Psalm," and the " Lord our Shepherd: an 
Exposition of the XXIII. Psalm." 12mo. 1o cents. 

"A popular Exposition of the 103d Psalm has been published under the appropri- 
ate title of ' Gratitude,' by the Kev. John Stevenson, whose beautiful little work 
'The Lord our Shepherd,' will be remembered. Its style is simple, its views of 
truth sound, and its spirit earnest. Its sweet and impressive truths cannot be 
meditated upon by the devout heart without pleasure and spiritual profit" — 
JSvangelist 

Willison's Sacramental Catechism. 

18mo. 

The Village Pastor. 

18mo. 40 cents. 

The Village Observer. 

18mo. 30 cents. 

The Village Churchyard. 

18mo. 40 cents. 

"Three charming little volumes, by the author of 'The Eetrospect,' from the press 
of the Messrs. Carter, embracing; a variety of sketches from real life, and im- 
parting wholesome religious instruction." — Fresbyterian. 

Mabel Grant : 

A Highland Story. By Randall Ballantyne. 18mo. 50 cents. 

"A delightful story of Scottish life. A godly minister having left his family with 
slender means, the mother, by her dis'cretion and piety, and some favorable cir- 
cumstances in Divine providence, is enabled to train her daughter 'in the way 
she should go,' and is rewarded by seeing the development of'moral excellence 
in her charactar as the latter matures to womanhood. There is much of artless 
simplicity and evangelical religion pervading the book." — Chronicle. 

Charles Koussel ; or^ Honesty and Industry. 

By the author of " Three Months under the Snow." 18mo. 40 cents. 

" The trials and toils of a brave young heart, with their legitimate reward, are here 
narrated in simple and touching language. A poor lad, early deprived of a fa- 
thers care, manages to execute an apparently impracticable plan of his own in- ^ 
vention^, with such persevering industry and unshaken trust in Providence as to ' 
succeed in supporting his widowed mother and the younger children, until at 
last he secures for them and himself a settled and comfortable home, accompa- " 
nied with the esteem and respect of the wise and good. Beloved youth, read 
this volume and imitate the noble virtues of Charles Eoussel." — Lit. Standard. . 



V 



CARTERS* PUBLICATIONS. 

The Young Man's Friend and Guide through. Life to 

Immortalit3^ 

By the Rev. John Angel James. 16mo. *7o cents. 
"The young men of our land have in this book a rare treasure. Every page is 
fraught with instruction of momentous interest. No young man who would 
prepare for the life that now is, and for that which is to come, should fail to 
read it.'' — Advocate, 

Pieces Paulinos ; or, Devotions of the Apostle Paul. 

16mo. Yo cents. 
" A gem of no ordinary worth. * * * "v^e may briefly describe it, and this 
because we think its title fails to do so, as a Treatise on Prayer, founded on the 
instances of prayer recorded of, and by, the Apostle Paul. It is searching, de- 
votional, practical, and profitable.'" — Christian Annotator. 

Philip Colville, a Covenanter's Story. 

By Grace Kennedy, author of "Anna Ross." 18mo. 

The Dead in Christ ; their State, Present and Future. 

By John Brown, D.D. 16mo. 

Memoir of John Frederiok Oberlin, Pastor of the 
Waldbach in the Ban De La Eoche. 

18mo. 40 cents. . 

" The mind that does not rise from this memoir excited and mightier for God, has 
a heartlessness and apathy none will covet.'' — Ualsey. 

Israel and the Gentiles. 

Contributions to the History of the Jews from the earliest time to 

the present day. By Dr. Isaac Da Costa. $1.25. 

Stray Arrows. 

By the Rev. T. L. Cuyler, new and enhirged edition. ISmo. 40 cents. 

Emily Yernon ; or, Filial Piety Exemplified. 

By Mrs. Drummond. 

"Most cordially do we recommend it as a grift to young ladies who have passed 
their sixteenth birthday.'' — British Jfothers' Magazine. 

" The story is simple, but beautiful in its simplicity ; while here and there we 
meet with passages of exquisite grace and pathos. It has our hearty recom- 
mendation." — Commoruwealth. 

A Chart of the Sacred History of the World from the 
Creation to the Birth of Christ, 

Being a Synchronical arrangement of the leading events of sacred ' 
and profane history; subdivided into periods, embeUished by 
pictorial illustrations, and accompanied by a concise Introductory 
Sketch, and copious notes. Folio. $1.50 

347 7 7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Onve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





00173185194 



":'j^i^^^^^- 












■:;%,.:V;^ 



■>: 






*%4 






^.V7 



H^ 



^/^j'tIij. 






